Psychometric Properties of the Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal Questionnaire: Evidence From the Czech Republic

Abstract

This article introduces a validation study of the Czech version of an independent and interdependent self-construal questionnaire (SCS, Vignoles et al., 2016) conducted on 330 Czech subjects. In this study, the reliability, convergent validity and factor validity were verified. However, the confirmatory factor analysis revealed unsatisfactory factor structure (RMSEA = 0.053 [0.048, 0.057], SRMR = 0.080, CFI = 0.775, TLI = 0.755). These results are discussed with respect to other adaptations of individualism/collectivism scales in countries beyond typical West-East dichotomy. Hence, the article not only critically discusses the shortcoming of the Czech and original versions of the questionnaires, but also the general issues of the individualism-collectivism construct in the cross-cultural context as a whole.

The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism– Collectivism Self-Report Scales

“…For the reason of different results obtained from both approaches, we agree with scholars on the call to abandon the "traditional" approach in favour of emphasizing the importance of implementing measurement invariance testing in cross-cultural research in general (e.g., Boer et al, 2018;Chen, 2008;Jeong & Lee, 2019;Fischer & Karl, 2019; as well as in self-report I/C research (e.g., Chen & West, 2008;Cozma, 2011;Lacko et al, 2021;Levine et al, 2003a;2003b;Oyserman et al, 2002;Schimmack et al, 2005).…”

“…The unsatisfactory situation of the lack of invariance testing is also observed in counselling research (Chen et al, 2020). The situation is similar in research on individualism and collectivism (Chen & West, 2008; Cozma, 2011; Lacko et al, 2021), which has been a long-term ‘flagship’ construct in cross-cultural research, and which is therefore applied in the present article as a demonstration of the essentiality of measurement invariance testing in cross-cultural research.…”

“…In order to achieve this aim, we used a real and unpublished cross-cultural dataset. The main reason for not publishing the original data was the inability to establish even configural measurement invariance across countries, which is unfortunately quite common in I/C research (for review, see Lacko et al, 2021). We applied various methods to address the issue of noninvariance.…”

“…Despite the fact that individualism and collectivism (I/C) are referred to in almost all psychology textbooks, and that every research psychologist is probably aware of this dimension, the validity of I/C research has often been criticized over the past two decades (e.g. Bresnahan et al, 2005; Brewer & Chen, 2007; Chen & West, 2008; Cozma, 2011; Heine et al, 2002; Lacko et al, 2021; Levine, Bresnahan, Park, Lapinsky, et al, 2003; 2003b; Matsumoto, 1999; Oyserman et al, 2002; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Schimmack et al, 2005; Takano & Osaka, 1999, 2018; Voronov & Singer, 2002). Critics highlight that I/C research lacks concurrent and discriminant validity, clarity of conceptualization and, most importantly, that the scholars of I/C research do not use validated methods or adequate statistical procedures.…”

“…Critics highlight that I/C research lacks concurrent and discriminant validity, clarity of conceptualization and, most importantly, that the scholars of I/C research do not use validated methods or adequate statistical procedures. As Lacko et al (2021) pointed out, not a single validated instrument is currently available which would repeatedly satisfy the demanding criteria of scalar measurement invariance across various cultures and would simultaneously remain confirmatory.…”