Analysis of the Modernity Scale

Abstract

This article introduces item response theory as a method to test and improve the cross-cultural scalar equivalence of a psychological measurement instrument. A comparison of American Hispanics and Mainstream Americans on the dimension of modernity is also reported. The 25-item Overall Modernity Scale (Inkeles & Smith, 1974) was administered to 432 Hispanic and Mainstream navy recruits. Consistent with previous research, the scale was found to have a single dominant dimension and moderate reliability. Analyses based on item response theory indicted that there was no item bias against either of the two ethnic groups. No difference was found between the mean level of modernity for the Hispanic and Mainstream subjects. Explanations of the lack of cross cultural differences are offered. Issues related to cross-cultural comparisons and the statistical-substantial meanings of item bias are also discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Drasgow, F. , & Lissak, R. I. Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1983, 68, 363-373.

Drasgow, F. , & Parsons, C. K. Applications of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1983, 7, 189-199.

Hui, C. H. , & Triandis, H. C. Multi-strategy approach to cross-cultural research: The case of locus of control. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1983, 13, 65-83.

Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F. , & Komocar, J. Application of item response theory to analysis of attitude scale translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 818-825.

Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F. , & Parsons, C. K. Item response theory: Applications to psychological measurement. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1983.

Hulin, C. L. , Lissak, R. I. , & Drasgow, F. Recovery of two and three parameter logistic item characteristic curves: A Monte Carlo study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1982, 6, 249-260.

Humphreys, L. G. , & Montanelli, R. G., Jr. An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975, 10, 193-205.

Inkeles, A. , & Smith, D. H. Becoming modern. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Ironson, G. A comparative analysis of several methods of assessing item bias . Journal of Educational Measurement, 1979, 16, 209-226.

10.

Irwin, M. , Engle, P. L. , Klein, R. E. , & Yarbrough, C. Traditionalism and field dependence: A failure to replicate. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1976, 7, 463-472.

11.

Jones, P. A. The validity of traditional-modern attitude measures . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1977, 8, 207-239.

12.

Linn, R. L. , Levine, M. V. , Hastings, C. N. , & Wardrop, J. L. Item bias in a test of reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1981, 5, 159-173.

13.

Miller, K. A. , & Inkeles, A. Modernity and acceptance of family: Limitation in four developing countries. Journal of Social Issues, 1974, 30(4), 167-188.

14.

Poortinga, Y. H. Cross-cultural comparison of maximum performance tests: Some methodological aspects and some experiments with simple auditory and visual stimuli . Psychologia Africana Monograph Supplement, 1971, No. 6.

15.

Poortinga, Y. H. Some implications of three different approaches to intercultural comparison. In J. W. Berry & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1975.

16.

Wingersky, M. S. LOGIST: A program for computing maximum likelihood procedures for logistic test models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), ERIBC monograph on applications of item response theory. Vancouver, B.C.: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, in press.

17.

Wood, R. L. , & Lord, F. M. A user's guide to LOGIST. Research Bulletin 76-4. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976.

18.

Wood, R. L. , Wingersky, M. S. , & Lord, F. M. LOGIST: A computer program for estimating examinee ability and item characteristic curve parameters. Research Bulletin 76-6. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976.