Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
11 - Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
from Part III - Methodological Considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
We discuss best practices in scale translation and establishing measurement equivalence/ invariance (ME/I) using examples from Project 3535, a multinational work-family interface study. Best practices for scale translation and adaptation include: 1) formulating a culturally sensitive research plan and fostering team dynamics that assure its implementation, 2) use of expert bilingual and bicultural indigenous translators, 3) forward and back translation, 4) multiple rounds of review and reconciliation by a multinational team, 5) multiple rounds of pilot testing, and 6) extensive documentation of procedures. We then explain why establishing ME/I is essential for cross-cultural research and discuss different methods for how to obtain it. We describe how multiple group CFA can be used to establish three different levels of ME/I (i.e., configural, metric, and scalar). We also discuss issues such as goodness-of-fit criteria, partial invariance, and the statistical programs available for carrying out ME/I analyses.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface , pp. 212 - 229Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Aycan, Z. (2017). Introducing Project 3535: Lessons learned from a multicultural collaborative research on the work-family interface. In Korabik, K., Aycan, Z., & Ayman, R. (Eds.), The Work-Family Interface in Global Context (pp 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagger, J., & Love, J. (2010). Methodological considerations in conducting cross-national work-family survey research. In Sweet, S. & Casey, J. (Eds.), Work and Family Encyclopedia. Chestnut Hill, MA: Sloan Work and Family Research Network.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 287–321.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 155–175. doi:10.1177/0022022102250225Google Scholar
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, M. W. L., Leung, K., & Au, K. (2006). Evaluating multilevel models in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 522–541.Google Scholar
Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Feild, H. S. (2006). The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership: A multinational test. Organizational Research Methods, 9(3), 339–368.Google Scholar
Davidov, E., Dulmer, H., Schluter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(4), 558–575. doi:10.1177/0022022112438397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137Google Scholar
De Beuckelaer, A., & Lievens, F. (2009). Measurement equivalence of paper-and-pencil and internet organisational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(2), 336–361. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00350.xGoogle Scholar
Ekrut, S., Alarcon, O., Coll, C. G., Tropp, L. R., & Garcia, H. A. V. (1999). The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 206–218.Google Scholar
Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(435–441).Google Scholar
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111–126. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.1.111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45(153–171).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J.G., Shanine, K.K., & Kacmar, K.M. (2017). Introducing the family: A review of family science with implications for management research. Academy of Management Annuals, 11 (1), 309–341; doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0053.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Korabik, K., Aycan, Z., & Ayman, R. (2017). The work–family interface in global context: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 361–388. doi:10.1177/1094428104268027Google Scholar
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 2011–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus users guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Foucreault, A. (2016). Cross-national work-life research: Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and organizations. Journal of Management, 1–26. doi:10.1177/0149206316655873Google Scholar
Oreg, S., Bayazit, M., Vakola, M., Arciniega, L., Armenakis, A., Barkauskiene, R.,… van Dam, K. (2008). Dispositional resistance to change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 935–944. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.935Google Scholar
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, A. Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 597–616. doi:10.1002/job.568Google Scholar
Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517–529. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.517Google Scholar
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169–215. doi:10.1177/1094428103251542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management, 18, 210–222. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
Tay, L., Meade, A.W., & Cao, M. (2015). An overview and practical guide to IRT measurement equivalence analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 3–46.Google Scholar
Trimble, J. E. (2007). Cultural measurement equivalence. In Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 139–158.Google Scholar
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(1), 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R.J., & Morelli, N.A. (2016). A contemporary update for testing for measurement equivalence and invariance. In Meyer, J.P. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Commitment (pp. 449–461). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by