Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 702-722

  Welkenhuysen Gybels, Jerry ^a   Billiet, Jaak ^a   Cambré, Bart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Acquiescence; Construct equivalence; Measurement invariance; Method bias; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242287048     PISSN: 00220221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022022103257070     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2. Bentler, P. M., Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1971). Identification of context and style: two-dimensional interpretation of acquiescence. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 186-204.
3. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1993). Cross-cultural psychology. Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Billiet, J. B. (1996). Theoretical dimensions and measurement models of attitudes towards ethnic minorities (Bulletin 1996/23). Leuven: ISPO.
5. Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modelling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modelling, 7, 608-628.
6. Bollen. K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
7. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1992). Tests for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 123-131.
8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445-455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
10. Cambré, B. (2002). De relatie tussen religiositeit en etnocentrisme. Een contextuele benadering met cross-culturele data [The relationship between religiosity and ethnocentrism: A contextual approach with cross-cultural data]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
11. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999, August). What constitutes significant differences in testing measurement invariance ? Paper presented at the conference of the academy of management, Chicago.
12. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modelling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
13. Coenders, G. (1996). Structural equation modelling of ordinal data. Barcelona: ESADE. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
14. Coenders, H., & Saris, W. (1995). Categorisation and measurement quality. The choice between Pearson and polychoric correlations. In W. Saris & A. Munnich (Eds.), The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instruments(pp. 125-144). Budapest: Eötvos University Press.
15. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Current trends in international migration in Europe. Table 4: Stock of foreign population as a percentage of total population in selected European countries, 1980-1997. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/action/publi/migrants/table4.htm
16. De Witte, H. (1999). Alledaags racisme in België. Een overzicht van de onderzoeksliteratuur over racistische opvattingen en een interpretatie van de betekenis van het opleidingsniveau [Everyday racism in Belgium. An overview of the research literature on racist opinions and an interpretation of the significance of education]. Migrantenstudies, 1, 2-27.
17. GNP per capita 1995, Atlas method (n.d.). Retrieved, May 15, 2003, from http://www.statistischedaten.de/_tabellenetc/wdi11.pdf
18. Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 176-188.
19. Homer, P., & O'Brien, R. M. (1988). Using LISREL models with crude rank category measures. Quality and Quantity, 22, 191-202.
20. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology. A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 131-152.
21. International Labour Organization. (2001). World employment report 2001. Statistical annex. Table 4: unemployment rate. Retrieved, May 15, 2003, from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/wer/tables/tab4_me.htm
22. Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles and the assessment of psychopathology. In S. Messick & J. Ross (Eds.), Measurement in personality and cognition (pp. 129-155). New York: John Wiley.
23. Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models. A simulation study of categorisation error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398-407.
24. Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey-research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, 3, 1-40.
25. Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). New developments in LISREL. Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity, 24, 387-404.
26. Kalton, G., & Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The treatment of missing survey data. Survey Methodology, 12, 1-16.
27. Lapiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
28. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
29. McClendon, M. J. (1991). Acquiescence and recency response-order effects in survey interviews. Sociological Methods and Research, 20, 60-103.
30. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1991). Eliminating defence and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control: A 22 index. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 127-145.
31. O'Brien, R. M. (1985). The relationship between ordinal measures and their underlying values: Why all the disagreement? Quality and Quantity, 19, 265-277.
32. Rensvold, R. B., & Cheung, G. W. (1998). Testing measurement models for factorial invariance: A systematic approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1017-1034.
33. Sen, A., & Srivastava, M. (1991). Regression analysis. Theory, methods and applications. New York: Springer.
34. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
35. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
36. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1998). Towards a theory of bias and equivalence, ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, 3, 41-65.
37. van de Vijver, F. Jr., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. van Herk, H. (2000). Equivalence in a cross-national context: Methodological and empirical issues in marketing research. Zeewolde: Author.
39. Verberk, G. (1998). Attitudes towards ethnic minorities, conceptualisations, measurements, and models [Doctoral dissertation]. Nijmegen: Katholieke Univeristeit Nijmegen.
40. Watson, D. (1992). Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale: An application to class consciousness. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 52-88.
41. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J., Hajnal, I., & Billiet, J. (2000, July 15-17). On the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multigroup setting. Paper presented at the 22nd biennial conference of the Society for Multivariate Analysis in the Behavioural Sciences, London.
42. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. G. J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). A comparison of methods for the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multigroup setting. In, 2001 proceedings. American Statistical Association [CD-ROM]. Opladen: Leske+budrich.