The Cross-National Invariance Properties of a New Scale to Measure 19 Basic Human Values: A Test Across Eight Countries (original) (raw)

Abstract

Several studies that measured basic human values across countries with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-21) reported violations of measurement invariance. Such violations may hinder meaningful cross-cultural research on human values because value scores may not be comparable. Schwartz et al. proposed a refined value theory and a new instrument (PVQ-5X) to measure 19 more narrowly defined values. We tested the measurement invariance of this instrument across eight countries. Configural and metric invariance were established for all values across almost all countries. Scalar invariance was supported across nearly all countries for 10 values. The analyses revealed that the cross-country invariance properties of the values measured with the PVQ-5X are substantially better than those measured with the PVQ-21.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (35)

  1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (in press). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling. Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values-Evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 759-776. doi:10.1177/0022022110362757
  2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
  3. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
  5. Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272-300. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
  6. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
  7. Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 287-321. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1302_7
  8. Chen, F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
  9. Chen, F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparison in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005-1018. doi:10.1037/a0013193
  10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  11. Cieciuch, J., & Davidov, E. (2012). A comparison of the invariance properties of the PVQ-40 and the PVQ- 21 to measure human values across German and Polish samples. Survey Research Methods, 6, 37-48.
  12. Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). A hierarchical structure of basic human values in a third-order confirmatory factor analysis. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 3.
  13. Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2012). The number of distinct basic values and their structure assessed by PVQ-40. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 321-328. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.655817
  14. Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2, 33-46.
  15. Davidov, E. (2010). Testing for comparability of human values across countries and time with the third round of the European Social Survey. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 51, 171-191. doi:10.1177/0020715210363534
  16. Davidov, E., Datler, G., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Testing the invariance of values in the Benelux countries with the European Social Survey: Accounting for ordinality. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 149-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
  17. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in. The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420-445. doi:10.1093/ poq/nfn035
  18. Horn, J., & McArdle, J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
  19. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional cri- teria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
  20. Jöreskog, K. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426. doi:10.1007/BF02291366
  21. Knoppen, D., & Saris, W. E. (2009). Do we have combine values in the Schwartz' human values scale? A comment on the Davidov studies. Survey Research Methods, 3, 91-103.
  22. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  23. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
  24. Oberski, D. L. O. (2009). Jrule for Mplus (Version 0.91) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www. daob.nl/software
  25. Saris, W. E., Knoppen, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2013). Operationalizing the theory of human values: Balancing homogeneity of reflective items and theoretical coverage. Survey Research Methods, 7, 29- 44.
  26. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561-582. doi:10.1080/10705510903203433
  27. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  28. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
  29. Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey (pp. 259-319). Available from www.european- socialsurvey.org
  30. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47, 929-968.
  31. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., . . .Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663-688. doi:10.1037/a0029393
  32. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001
  33. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90. doi:10.1086/209528
  34. Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Towards a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139-158. doi:10.1177/ 1094428102005002001
  35. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-69. doi:10.1177/109442810031002