Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2008-6
Diffusion of Measurement Invariance Assessment in Cross-National Empirical Marketing Research: Perspectives from the Literature and a Survey of Researchers
The authors examine (1) the extent to which cross-national marketing scholars report measurement invariance (MI) assessment results and (2) what cross-national marketing scholars think about MI assessment in general. In Study 1, the authors analyze all cross-national empirical articles (243) published in 15 well-respected and peer-reviewed marketing journals from 2000 to 2005. Although the results indicate a steady growth of published cross-national empirical marketing research and assessment of MI, only 28% of the studies undertook the procedure. In Study 2, the authors analyze responses from 86 cross-national empirical marketing scholars regarding their knowledge about, attitudes toward, and use of MI assessment. The results indicate that the relatively low utilization of MI assessment is due to low MI knowledge and the sophistication of the techniques. The authors conclude with suggested implications for the field of international marketing and a discussion of future research directions.
AldenDana L., SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and BatraRajeev (2006), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketing Globalization: Antecedent, Consequent and Structural Factors,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 227–39.
2.
AulakhPreet S., and KotabeMasaaki (1993), “An Assessment of Theoretical and Methodological Development in International Marketing: 1980–1990,”Journal of International Marketing, 1(2), 5–28.
3.
BagozziRichard P., and YiYoujae (1989), “On the Use of Structural Equation Models in Experimental Design,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 271–84.
4.
BaumgartnerHans (2004), “Issues in Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Research,” paper presented at Sheth Foundation/Sudman Symposium on Cross-Cultural Survey Research, University of Illinois (October 1).
5.
BaumgartnerHans, and SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. (1998), “Multiple-Group Latent Variable Models for Varying Numbers of Items and Factors with Cross-National and Longitudinal Applications,”Marketing Letters, 9(1), 21–35.
6.
BegleyThomas M., and TanWee-Liang (2001), “The Socio-Cultural Environment for Entrepreneurship: A Comparison Between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon Countries,”Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 537–53.
7.
BollenKenneth (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
8.
ByrneB.M., ShavelsonR.J., and MuthénBengt (1989), “Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance,”Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–66.
9.
CheungGordon W., and RensvoldRoger B. (1999), “Testing Factorial Invariance Across Groups: A Reconceptualization and Proposed New Method,”Journal of Management, 25(1), 1–27.
10.
CraigC. Samuel, and DouglasSusan P. (2000), International Marketing Research, 2d ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
CronbachLee J., GleserGoldine C., NandaHarinder, and RajaratnamNageswari (1972), The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
CunninghamWilliam, CunninghamIsabella C.M., and GreenRobert T. (1977), “The Ipsative Process to Reduce Response Set Bias,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(Fall), 379–94.
13.
De JongMartijn, SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and FoxJean-Paul (2007), “Relaxing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research Using a Hierarchical IRT Approach,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 260–78.
14.
DeshpandéRohit, FarleyJohn U., and WebsterFrederick E.Jr., (2000), “Triad Lessons: Generalizing Results on High Performance Firms in Five Business-to-Business Markets,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(4), 353–62.
15.
EwingMichael T., SalzbergerThomas, and SinkovicsRudolf R. (2005), “An Alternative Approach to Assessing Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence in Advertising Research,”Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 17–36.
16.
GriffithDavid A., MyersMatthew B., and HarveyMichael G. (2006), “An Investigation of National Culture's Influence on Relationship and Knowledge Resources in Interorganizational Relationships Between Japan and the United States,”Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), 1–32.
17.
GriffithDavid A., and SchusterCamille (2002), “Before Measurement Equivalence: Ensuring Conceptual Equivalence,” in American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Vol. 13, JackA. Lingren, and KehoeWilliam J., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 315.
18.
HoltDouglas B., QuelchJohn A., and TaylorEarl L. (2004), “How Global Brands Compete,”Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 68–75.
19.
HuiC. Harry, and TriandisHarry C. (1985), “Multidimensional Scaling and Item Response Theory,” in Cross-Cultural and National Studies in Social Psychology, Diaz BuerreroR., ed. Amsterdam: North Holland, 17–31.
20.
HuiC. Harry, and TriandisHarry C. (1989), “Measurement in Cross-Cultural Psychology: A Review and Comparison of Strategies,”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131–52.
21.
HultG., TomasM., KetchenDavid J.Jr., GriffithDavid A., FinneganCarol A., Gonzalez-PadronTracy L., HarmanciogluNukhet (in press), “Data Equivalence in Cross-Cultural International Business Research: An Assessment and Guidelines,”Journal of International Business Studies, forthcoming.
22.
LordFrederic M., and NovickMelvin R. (1968), Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23.
MalhotraNaresh K., and AgarwalJames (1996), “Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Marketing Research,”International Marketing Review, 13(5), 7–33.
24.
MattilaAnna S., and PattersonPaul G. (2004), “The Impact of Culture on Consumers’ Perceptions of Service Recovery Efforts,”Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 196–206.
25.
MehtaRajiv (2001), “Leadership and Cooperation in Marketing Channels: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of the USA, Finland and Poland,”International Marketing Review, 18(6), 633–66.
26.
MorrisTom, and PavettCynthia M. (1992), “Management Style and Productivity in Two Cultures,”Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 169–79.
27.
MullenMichael R. (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research,”Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 573–96.
28.
MyersMatthew B., CalantoneRoger J., PageThomas J.Jr., and TaylorCharles R. (2000), “An Application of Multiple-Group Causal Models in Assessing Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence,”Journal of International Marketing, 8(4), 108–121.
29.
NakataCheryl, and HuangYili (2005), “Progress and Promise: The Last Decade of International Marketing Research,”Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 611–18.
30.
NeelankavilJames P. (2000), “Determinants of Managerial Performance: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Perceptions of Middle-Level Managers in Four Countries,”Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1), 121–40.
31.
PerraultWilliam D.Jr., and LeighLaurence E. (1989), “Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May), 135–48.
32.
RaschGeorge (1960), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests.Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
33.
ReynoldsCecil R., and HardingRichard E. (1983), “Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity Under Six Methods of Comparison,”Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 723–28.
34.
ReynoldsN.L., SimintirasA.C., and DiamantopoulosA. (2003), “Theoretical Justification of Sampling Choices in International Marketing Research: Key Issues and Guidelines for Researchers,”Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 80–89.
35.
RiordanChristine M., and VandenbergRobert J. (1994), “A Central Question in Cross-Cultural Research: Do Employees of Different Cultures Interpret Work-Related Measures in an Equivalent Manner?”Journal of Management, 20(3), 643–71.
36.
SekaranUma (1983), “Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancements in Cross-Cultural Research,”Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 61–73.
37.
SharmaSubhash, and WeathersDanny (2003), “Assessing Generalizability of Scales Used in Cross-National Research,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(3), 287–95.
38.
SinLeo Y.M., and CheungGordon W.H. (1999), “Methodology in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research: A Review and Critical Assessment,”Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 75–96.
39.
SinghJagdip (1995), “Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research,”Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619.
40.
SouchonAnne L., DiamantopoulosAdamantios, HolzmüllerHartmut H., AxinnCatherine N., SinkulaJames M., SimmetHeike, and DurdenGeoffrey R. (2003), “Export Information Use: A Five-Country Investigation of Key Determinants,”Journal of International Marketing, 11(3), 106–127.
41.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and BaumgartnerHans (1998), “Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.
42.
TsangEric W.K. (2002), “Sharing International Joint Venturing Experience: A Study of Some Key Determinants,”Management International Review, 42(2), 183–205.
43.
Van BirgelenMarcel, de RuyterKo, de JongAd, and WetzelsMartin (2002), “Customer Evaluations of After-Sales Service Contact Modes: An Empirical Analysis of National Culture's Consequences,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 43–64.
44.
Van der VijverFon, and LeungKwok (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research.London: Sage Publications.
45.
Van HerkHester, PoortingaYpe H., and VerhallenTheo M.M. (2005), “Equivalence of Survey Data: Relevance for International Marketing,”European Journal of Marketing, 39(3-4), 351–64.
