2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
614
1
32

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 727 publications
(652 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
5
614
1
32
Order By: Relevance
“…The concepts of equivalence and bias have been put forward with regard to cross-cultural assessment and interpretation (van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). In our studies, we observed not only similarities but also considerable variation among the samples, both within and across cultures.…”
Section: Limitationssupporting
confidence: 59%
“…The concepts of equivalence and bias have been put forward with regard to cross-cultural assessment and interpretation (van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). In our studies, we observed not only similarities but also considerable variation among the samples, both within and across cultures.…”
Section: Limitationssupporting
confidence: 59%
“…However, the validity of inferences based on these instruments entails multiple, non-trivial assumptions that are not always tested (see Byrne and Campbell 1999;Poortinga 1989;Van de Vijver and Leung 1997;Van de Vijver and Tanzer 2004). These issues include the degree to which group-level data are acquired using similar sampling techniques (e.g., if estimates of some nations' scores are inferred from samples of college students, whereas estimates of other nations' scores are inferred from foragers), the degree to which methods of data collection vary across groups (e.g., paper-pencil questionnaire versus interview), the degree to which the same assessment method may produce different demand characteristics across groups, and the degree to which factor structures, factor loadings, and item intercepts are equivalent across groups.…”
Section: Cross-cultural Non-equivalence Of Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As expected we have found different TMT scores between the present study and those reported by other published studies. Incomparability of samples and administration differences were the most likely factors accounting for differences when a cross-cultural comparison of test results is [34] [35].…”
Section: A Comparison Of Present Study Results and Other Published Stmentioning
confidence: 99%