Compiling Measurement Invariant Short Scales in Cross–Cultural Personality Assessment Using Ant Colony Optimization

Abstract

Examining the influence of culture on personality and its unbiased assessment is the main subject of cross‐cultural personality research. Recent large‐scale studies exploring personality differences across cultures share substantial methodological and psychometric shortcomings that render it difficult to differentiate between method and trait variance. One prominent example is the implicit assumption of cross‐cultural measurement invariance in personality questionnaires. In the rare instances where measurement invariance across cultures was tested, scalar measurement invariance—which is required for unbiased mean‐level comparisons of personality traits—did not hold. In this article, we present an item sampling procedure, ant colony optimization, which can be used to select item sets that satisfy multiple psychometric requirements including model fit, reliability, and measurement invariance. We constructed short scales of the IPIP‐NEO‐300 for a group of countries that are culturally similar (USA, Australia, Canada, and UK) as well as a group of countries with distinct cultures (USA, India, Singapore, and Sweden). In addition to examining factor mean differences across countries, we provide recommendations for cross‐cultural research in general. From a methodological perspective, we demonstrate ant colony optimization's versatility and flexibility as an item sampling procedure to derive measurement invariant scales for cross‐cultural research. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology

Personality and Attitudes Confronting Death Awareness During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy and Spain

“…This is a robust effect which was also replicated for the current research. Moreover, results seems to support that personality is stable across cluster groups, supporting the idea that invariance across groups occurs, and even in different cultures ( 25 ). Nor differences were found for other traits of personality.…”

A (More) Behavioural Science of Personality in the Age of Multi–Modal Sensing, Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

“…data mining of websites and multi‐modal sensing) to sample a plethora of variables from many people and run some form of supervised or unsupervised machine learning over that big data to solve certain problems—often better or more accurately than we could do with simpler or piecemeal manual analyses (e.g. when creating new short forms of scales; Dörendahl & Greiff, 2020; Jankowsky, Olaru, & Schroeders, 2020; Olaru, Schroeders, Hartung, & Wilhelm, 2019). Harnessing these new opportunities should be encouraged; in fact, they probably should even be integrated into the common methodological, statistical, and quantitative training of psychologists.…”

The HEX-ACO-18: Developing an age-invariant HEXACO short scale using Ant Colony Optimization

“…In addition, the various item selection criteria generally do not unequivocally support the same items: it is up to the researcher to decide which items to choose for the final version. However, as Figure 2 showed, the room for errors or uncertainty in the item selection procedure is small to non-existent when optimizing model fit and measurement invariance of broad personality scales (see also, Jankowsky et al, 2020).…”

“…ACO or similar metaheuristic procedures (e.g., genetic algorithm; Yarkoni, 2010) have been used in several scale development contexts to improve (among others) model fit and reliability (e.g., Kerber et al, 2019;Leite et al, 2008;Jannssen et al, 2015). They have also been used in several studies to improve the MI of scales in a multi-group context, for instance to improve the genderfairness of knowledge tests (Schroeders et al, 2016) or the comparability between personality scales across different languages or cultures (Jankowsky et al, 2020;Olaru & Danner, 2021).…”

“…When developing a full scale, items can also be based on a theoretically-assumed structure and selected with ACO to fit this structure well. Because ACO only selects the items, any type of structure can be defined by the user (e.g., higher-order; Olaru et al, 2018;bi-factor;Jankowsky et al, 2020). For a more bottom-up development approach (e.g., Condon et al, 2020), a large item pool can be generated or created based on existing measures (e.g., Condon, 2018;Yarkoni, 2010).…”