Towards a Comprehensive Procedure for Developing Measurement Scales for Cross-Cultural Management Research

Abstract

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. C omparative organizational research consists of the systematic detection, identification, measurement and interpretation of similarities and differences of organizational behavior among employees of different cultural groups (Adler, 1983;Boddewyn, 1965). During the past decades, there has been a growing body of literature addressing the specific methodological problems of this type of research, such as the equivalence of constructs, samples, and measurement instruments. Meaningful cross-group comparisons presuppose that the measurement instruments used to assess attitudes, values or behaviors, operate in an equivalent way across groups (i.e., that they measure the same thing in the same way). This is usually called measurement equivalence. If measures are not equivalent, interpretations of differences in mean levels or in the pattern of correlation of the measures are potentially artifactual and may yield misleading or even incorrect results (Mullen, 1995). In case of severe lack of measurement invariance, substantive comparisons cannot be performed, possibly even requiring the collection of new data (Vandenberg, 2002).Prior to a further description of the present article, a word on terminology is needed. The field of comparative studies uses a set of terms such as equivalence in multiple ways (e.g., Johnson, 1998). In order to avoid terminological confusion, we define two key terms here. "Measurement equivalence" refers here to scales and to the issues related to designing and examining whether instruments work the same way in different cultures, whereas "measurement invariance" is narrower and refers here to the statistical tests designed to verify the measurement equivalence of scales. Issues regarding measurement equivalence are getting more and more popular in organizational research after the publication of several state-of-the art articles on the topic (e.g., Cavusgil & Das, 1997;Hui & Triandis, 1985;A. W. Meade & Lautenschlager, 2004a;Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991;Reise et al., 1993;Schaffer & Riordan, 2003;Singh, 1995;Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998;Vandenberg, 2002;Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). However, those articles focus principally on the statistical methods and procedures for assessing measurement invariance, rather than on how to develop multigroup equivalent measures. The approach described in the present article incorporates equivalence issues in the scale development process. Our aim is to describe a step-by-step procedure for developing measures that are more likely to provi...

Robustness and cross-cultural equivalence of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)

“…The factor loadings of COG5, BEH2, and BEH4 were not invariant across countries and were released; b consistent with the partial metric invariant model, the intercepts of the items with variant factor loadings and the intercepts of COG4 and MC3 that were not invariant were released Van de Vijver, 2013;Hult et al, 2008;Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).…”

“…The two-dimensional model of CQ possessed partial scalar equivalence. This relatively high level of equivalence is necessary to conduct cross-country comparisons and pool the data (Caramellia and Van de Vijver, 2013).…”

Kariyer Uyum Yeteneği Ölçeğinin Kültürlerarası Uyarlaması: Antalya daki Beş Yıldızlı Otellerin Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir Uygulama (Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: An Application on the Employees of Five-Star Hotels in Antalya)

“…Paralel kör çeviri ise metnin kaynak dilden, birden çok çevirmen tarafından ve birbirlerinden bağımsız olarak hedef dile çevrilmesine dayanmaktadır. Daha sonrasında yapılan bu çeviriler bir araya getirilmekte ve üzerinde tartışılarak nihai sürüme ulaşılmaktadır (Harkness 2003;Usunier 2011;Caramelli ve Van de Vijver 2013). Geri-çeviri ya da yapılan çevirilerin bir değerlendirme grubunun önüne sunulması çokça rastlanan teknikler olmasına rağmen, yazında Perneger, Leplège ve Etter (1999) ile Falcão, Ciconelli ve Ferraz (2003) gibi kimi araştırmacıların bu süreci geri çeviri ya da deneme grubu kullanmadan sonuçlandırmış olduğu da görülmektedir.…”