Survey research often uses Liker-type score items to measure respondents' attitudes with respect to certain topics. This type of item has been shown to be susceptible to an acquiescent response bias. The purpose of this article is to point out the importance of controlling for this type of response bias when evaluating the equivalence of the construct measured by the items across (cultural) groups. More specifically, it is shown how and when omitting a factor accounting for the acquiescent response bias leads to a biased assessment of the invariance of the loadings of the content factor across the groups under study. On the basis of these results, a procedure for controlling for acquiescence is proposed and illustrated on a large data set of nine West European countries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2.
Bentler, P. M., Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1971). Identification of context and style: two-dimensional interpretation of acquiescence. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 186-204.
3.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1993). Cross-cultural psychology. Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Billiet, J. B. (1996). Theoretical dimensions and measurement models of attitudes towards ethnic minorities (Bulletin 1996/23). Leuven: ISPO.
5.
Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modelling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modelling, 7, 608-628.
6.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1992). Tests for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 123-131.
8.
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. 445-455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
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.
10.
Cambré, B. (2002). De relatie tussen religiositeit en etnocentrisme. Een contextuele benadering met cross-culturele data [The relationship between religiosity and ethnocentrism: A contextual approach with cross-cultural data]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
11.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999, August). What constitutes significant differences in testing measurement invariance? Paper presented at the conference of the academy of management, Chicago.
12.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modelling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
13.
Coenders, G. (1996). Structural equation modelling of ordinal data. Barcelona: ESADE. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
14.
Coenders, H., & Saris, W. (1995). Categorisation and measurement quality. The choice between Pearson and polychoric correlations. In W. Saris & A. Munnich (Eds.), The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instruments(pp. 125-144). Budapest: Eötvos University Press.
15.
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Current trends in international migration in Europe. Table 4: Stock of foreign population as a percentage of total population in selected European countries, 1980-1997. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/action/publi/migrants/table4.htm
16.
De Witte, H. (1999). Alledaags racisme in België. Een overzicht van de onderzoeksliteratuur over racistische opvattingen en een interpretatie van de betekenis van het opleidingsniveau[Everyday racism in Belgium. An overview of the research literature on racist opinions and an interpretation of the significance of education]. Migrantenstudies, 1, 2-27.
Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 176-188.
19.
Homer, P., & O'Brien, R. M. (1988). Using LISREL models with crude rank category measures. Quality and Quantity, 22, 191-202.
20.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology. A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 131-152.
Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles and the assessment of psychopathology. In S. Messick & J. Ross (Eds.), Measurement in personality and cognition (pp. 129-155). New York: John Wiley.
23.
Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models. A simulation study of categorisation error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398-407.
24.
Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey-research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, 3, 1-40.
25.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). New developments in LISREL. Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity, 24, 387-404.
26.
Kalton, G., & Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The treatment of missing survey data. Survey Methodology, 12, 1-16.
27.
Lapiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
28.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
29.
McClendon, M. J. (1991). Acquiescence and recency response-order effects in survey interviews. Sociological Methods and Research, 20, 60-103.
30.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1991). Eliminating defence and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control: A 22 index. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 127-145.
31.
O'Brien, R. M. (1985). The relationship between ordinal measures and their underlying values: Why all the disagreement? Quality and Quantity, 19, 265-277.
32.
Rensvold, R. B., & Cheung, G. W. (1998). Testing measurement models for factorial invariance: A systematic approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1017-1034.
33.
Sen, A., & Srivastava, M. (1991). Regression analysis. Theory, methods and applications. New York: Springer.
34.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
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, 4-70.
36.
van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1998). Towards a theory of bias and equivalence. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, 3, 41-65.
37.
van de Vijver, F. Jr., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
van Herk, H. (2000). Equivalence in a cross-national context: Methodological and empirical issues in marketing research. Zeewolde: Author.
39.
Verberk, G. (1998). Attitudes towards ethnic minorities. conceptualisations, measurements, and models [Doctoral dissertation]. Nijmegen: Katholieke Univeristeit Nijmegen.
40.
Watson, D. (1992). Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale: An application to class consciousness. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 52-88.
41.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels J., Hajnal, I., & Billiet, J. (2000, July 15-17). On the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multigroup setting. Paper presented at the 22nd biennial conference of the Society for Multivariate Analysis in the Behavioural Sciences, London.
42.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. G. J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). A comparison of methods for the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multigroup setting. In, 2001 proceedings. American Statistical Association [CD-ROM]. Opladen: Leske+budrich.
