Measurement invariance is a necessary precondition for meaningful cross-country comparisons, and three levels have been differentiated: configural, metric, and scalar. Unfortunately, establishing the most stringent form, that is, scalar measurement invariance, across groups is difficult. Recently, Muthén and Asparouhov proposed testing for approximate rather than exact measurement invariance, as this may be sufficient for meaningful comparisons. Following their strategy, the results of cross-country approximate measurement invariance tests of the 21-item Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-21) scale to measure values in the European Social Survey are presented (N = 274,447 respondents from 15 countries participating in all six rounds). Applying the new approximate method for the test of measurement invariance allows both using more moderate constraints of approximate equality of parameters across groups and exploring the extent of noninvariance. Approximate measurement invariance was established in almost all rounds for two higher-order values: openness to change and self-enhancement. In the case of the two other higher-order values, self-transcendence and conservation, approximate measurement invariance was established across a subset of countries.
BeierleinConstanzeDavidovEldadSchmidtPeterSchwartzShalom H.RammstedtBeatrice. 2012. “Testing the Discriminant Validity of Schwartz’ Portrait Value Questionnaire Items—A Replication and Extension of Knoppen and Saris (2009).” Survey Research Methods6:25–36.
2.
BrownT. A.2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
3.
BollenKenneth A.1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
4.
ByrneBarbara M.ShavelsonRichard J.MuthénBengt O.. 1989. “Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance.” Psychological Bulletin105:456–66.
5.
ChenFang Fang. 2007. “Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling14:464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834.
6.
CieciuchJanDavidovEldadSchmidtPeterAlgesheimerRenéSchwartzShalom H.. 2014. “Comparing Results of an Exact versus an Approximate (Bayesian) Measurement Invariance Test: A Cross-Country Illustration with a Scale to Measure 19 Human Values.” Frontiers in Psychology5:982. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00982.
7.
CieciuchJanSchwartzShalom H.. 2012. “The Number of Distinct Basic Values and their Structure Assessed by PVQ-40.” Journal of Personality Assessment94:321–28. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.655817.
8.
DavidovEldad. 2008. “A Cross-country and Cross-time Comparison of the Human Values Measurements with the Second Round of the European Social Survey.” Survey Research Methods2:33–46.
9.
DavidovEldad. 2010. “Testing for Comparability of Human Values across Countries and Time with the Third Round of the European Social Survey.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology51:171–91. doi:10.1177/0020715210363534.
10.
DavidovEldadCieciuchJanMeulemanBartSchmidtPeterAlgesheimerRenéHausherrMirjam. 2015. “The Comparability of Measurements of Attitudes toward Immigration in the European Social Survey: Exact versus Approximate Measurement Equivalence.” Public Opinion Quarterly79:244–66. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv008
DavidovEldadDülmerHermannSchlueterElmarSchmidtPeterMeulemanBart. 2012. “Using a Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explain Cross-Cultural Measurement Noninvariance.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology43:558–75. doi:10.1177/0022022112438397.
13.
DavidovEldadMeulemanBartCieciuchJanSchmidtPeterBillietJaak. 2014. “Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research.” Annual Review of Sociology40:55–75. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137.
14.
DavidovEldadSchmidtPeterEdsJaak Billiet.. 2011. Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Routledge.
15.
DavidovEldadSchmidtPeterSchwartzShalom H.. 2008. “Bringing Values Back In. The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries.” Public Opinion Quarterly72:420–45. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn035.
16.
HornJohn L.McArdleJ. J.. 1992. “A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invariance in Aging Research.” Experimental Aging Research18:117–44. doi:10.1080/03610739208253916.
17.
HuLitzeBentlerPeter M.. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling6:1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
18.
KuhaJouniMoustakiIrini. 2015. “Nonequivalence of Measurement in Latent Variable Modeling of Multigroup Data: A Sensitivity Analysis.” Psychological Methods20:523–36. doi:10.1037/met0000031.
19.
KnoppenDesiréeSarisWillem. 2009. “Schwartz’ Theory of Human Values: Balancing Homogeneity of Reflective Items and Theoretical Coverage.” RECSM Working Paper9:1–40. Barcelona, Spain: Pompeu Fabra University.
20.
MarshHerbert W.HauKit-TaiWenZhonglin. 2004. “In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) Findings.” Structural Equation Modeling11:320–41. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
21.
MeulemanB.2012. “When are Intercept Differences Substantively Relevant in Measurement Invariance Testing?” Pp. 97–104 in Methods, Theories, and Empirical Applications in the Social Sciences: Festschrift for Peter Schmidt, edited by SalzbornSamuelDavidovEldadReineckeJost. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer VS.
22.
MillsapRoger E.2011. Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. New York: Routledge.
23.
MuthénBengt O.AsparouhovTihomir. 2013. BSEM Measurement Invariance Analysis. Mplus Web Notes, 17. Retrieved June 30, 2016 (http://www.statmodel.com/).
24.
MuthénBengt O.AsparouhovTihomir. 2018. “Recent Methods for the Study of Measurement Invariance with Many Groups.” Sociological Methods & Research47: 637–664. doi: 10.1177/0049124117701488.
OberskiDaniel L.2014. “Evaluating Sensitivity of Parameters of Interest to Measurement Invariance in Latent Variable Models.” Political Analysis22:45–60. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt014.
27.
SchwartzShalom H.1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theory and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Pp. 1–65 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, edited by ZannaMark P.. New York: Academic Press.
28.
SchwartzShalom H.2003. “A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations.” Pp. 259–319 in Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey. Retrieved June 30, 2016 (www.europeansocialsurvey.org).
29.
SchwartzShalom H.2006. “A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications.” Comparative Sociology5:137–82. doi:10.1163/1569133067786 67357.
30.
SchwartzShalom H.ButenkoTania. 2014. “Values and Behavior: Validating the Refined Value Theory in Russia.” European Journal of Social Psychology44:719–813. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2053.
31.
SchwartzShalom H.CieciuchJanVecchioneMichelleDavidovEldadFischerRonaldBeierleinConstanzeRamosAliceVerkasaloMarkkuLönnqvistJan-ErikDemirutkuKursadDirilen-GumusOzlemKontyMark. 2012. “Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology103:663–88. doi:10.1037/a0029393.
32.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E. M.BaumgartnerHans. 1998. “Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-national Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research25:78–90. doi:10.1086/209528.
33.
SteinmetzHolger. 2011. “Analyzing Observed Composite Differences across Groups: Is Partial Measurement Invariance Enough?” Methodology9:1–12. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000049.
34.
Van de SchootRensKluytmansAnouckTummersLarsLugtigPeterHoxJoopMuthénBengt O.. 2013. “Facing Off with Scylla and Charybdis: A Comparison of Scalar, Partial, and the Novel Possibility of Approximate Measurement Invariance.” Frontiers in Psychology4:770. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770.
35.
VandenbergRobert J.LanceCharles E.. 2000. “A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research.” Organizational Research Methods3:4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002.
36.
ZercherFlorianSchmidtPeterCieciuchJanDavidovEldad. 2015. “The Comparability of the Universalism Value over Time and across Countries in the European Social Survey: Exact versus Approximate Measurement Invariance.” Frontiers in Psychology6:733. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00733.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
