Инвариантность измерения базовых ценностей по методике Шварца среди русскоязычного населения четырех стран
Выражение признательности
Исследование осуществлено в рамках Программы фундаментальных исследований Национального исследовательского университета "Высшая школа экономики"
Аннотация
Возможность сравнивать значения различных показателей, полученных на основе опросов гетерогенных выборок, и особенно в международных опросах, всегда ставится под вопрос. Особенно при сравнении значений и взаимосвязей латентных переменных, часто измеряемых индексами, – из-за различий в структуре индексов на разных выборках сравнения значений индексов могут приводить к ложным результатам. В связи с этим возник ряд методов, позволяющих проверять сравнимость показателей на основании исследования инвариантности структур индикаторов латентных переменных. В статье обсуждаются различные методы оценки сравнимости измерений и на данных Европейского социального опроса рассматривается инвариантность измерения ценностных категорий «Самоутверждение» и «Забота о людях и природе» среди русскоязычных респондентов из четырех стран. Результаты многогруппового конфирматорного факторного анализа демонстрируют частичную скалярную инвариантность этих ценностей, что указывает на возможность сравнения средних значений между этими группами респондентов.
Ключевые слова:
инвариантность измерения, конфирматорный факторный анализ, базовые жизненные ценности
Литература
Adcock R., Collier D. Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research // American Political Science Review. 2001. Vol. 95. No. 3. P. 529–546.
Horn J.L., McArdle J.J. A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invariance in Aging Research // Experimental Aging Research. Routledge, 1992. Vol. 18. No. 3/4. P. 117–144.
Schwartz S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and 20 Countries // Advances in Experimеntal Social Psychology. Vol. 25 / Ed. by M. Zanna. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1992. P. 1–62.
Davidov E. A Cross-Country And Cross-Time Comparison Of The Human Values Measurements With The Second Round Of The European Social Survey // Survey Research Methods. 2008. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 33–46.
Thurstone L.L. Multiple-Factor Analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947.
Byrne B., Shavelson R., Muthén B. Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement in Variance // Psychological Bulletin. 1989. Vol. 105. No. 3. P. 456–466.
Meredith W. Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance // Psychometrika. 1993. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 525–543.
Vandenberg R.J., Lance C.E. A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research // Organizational Methods Research. 2000. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 4–70.
Крупенкова Н.В. Социологическое измерение: становление моделей с латентными переменными // Социология: 4М, 2008. № 26; 27.
Девятко И.Ф. Диагностическая процедура в социологии: очерк истории и теории. М.: Наука, 1993.
Davidov E., Meuleman B., Cieciuch J., Schmidt P. Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research // Public Opnion Quarterly (в печати).
Steenkamp J., Baumgartner H. Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross- National Consumer Research // Journal of Consumer Research 1998. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 78–107.
Milfont T., Fischer R. Testing Measurement Invariance across Groups: Applications in Cross-Cultural Research // Intenational Journal of Psychological Research. 2010. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 111–121.
Muthén B., Asparouhov T. BSEM Measurement Invariance Analysis. Mplus Web Notes: No. 17. 2013. URL: http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/ webnote17.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
Bilsky W., Janik M., Schwartz S.H. The Structural Organization of Human Values-Evidence from Three Rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2010. Vol. 42, № 5. P. 759–776.
Diamantopoulos A., Papadopoulos N. Assessing the Cross-National Invariance of Formative Measures: Guidelines for International Business Researchers // Journal of International Business Studies. Nature Publishing Group, 2009. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 360–370.
Fitzgerald R., Widdop S., Gray M., Collins D. Testing for Equivalence Using Cross-National Cognitive Interviewing. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys Working Papers. 2009. URL: http://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/125132/ CCSS-Working-Paper-No-01.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
Schwartz S., Bilsky W. Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987. Vol. 53. No. 3. P. 550–562.
Schwartz S.H. et al. Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 103. No. 4. P. 663–688.
Schwartz S.H., Melech G., Lehmann A., Burgess S., Harris M., Owens V. Extending The Cross-Cultural Validity Of The Theory Of Basic Human Values With A Different Method Of Measurement // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2001. Vol. 32. No. 5. P. 519–542.
Schwartz S. A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations Across Nations. 2003. P. 259–319 // URL: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/ core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf (date of access 24.11.2013).
Davidov E., Schmidt P., Schwartz S.H. Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2008. Vol. 72. No. 3. P. 420–445.
Davidov E., Schmidt P. Are Values in the Benelux Countries Comparable? Testing for Equivalence with the European Social Survey 2004-5 // Measuring meaningful data in Social Research / Ed. by G. Loosveldt, M. Swygedouw, B. Cambré. Leuven: Acco, 2008. P. 373–386.
Davidov E., Dülmer H., Schlüter E., Schmidt P., Meuleman B. Using a Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explain Cross-Cultural Measurement Noninvariance // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2012. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 558–575.
Knoppen D., Saris W.E. Do We Have to Combine Values in the Schwartz’ Human Values Scale? A Comment on the Davidov Studies // Survey Research Methods. 2009. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 91–103.
Saris W., Knoppen D., Schwartz S.H. Operationalizing the Theory of Human Values: Balancing Homogeneity of of Reflective Items and Theoretical Coverage // Survey Research Methods. 2013. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 29–44.
Harzing A.-W. Does Language Influence Response Styles? A Test of the Cultural Accommodation Hypothesis in Fourteen Countries // Ongoing Themes in Psycholy of Culture. (Online Edition) / Ed. by B.N. Setiadi et al. Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2004.
Jowell R., Roberts C., Fitzgerald R., Eva G. Measuring Attitudes Cross-nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. SAGE, 2007.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels J., Billiet J., Cambré B. Adjustment for Acquiescence in the Assessment of the Construct Equivalence of Likert-Type Score Items // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2003. Vol. 34. No. 6. P. 702–722.
Van Herk H., Poortinga Y.H., Verhallen T.M.M. Response Styles in Rating Scales: Evidence of Method Bias in Data From Six EU Countries // Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology. 2004. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 346–360.
Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation // Journal of Marketing Research. 2001. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 143–156.
Johnson T. The Relation Between Culture and Response Styles: Evidence From 19 Countries // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2005. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 264–277.
Smith P.B. Communication Styles as Dimensions of National Culture // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2011. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 216–233.
Wothke W. Nonpositive Definite Matrices in Structural Modeling // Testing Structural Equation Models / Ed. by K. Bollen, J.S. Long. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1993. P. 256–293.
Muthen L., Muthen B. Mplus. User’s Guide. Muthen & Muthen, 2013.
Brown T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. The Guilford Press, 2006.
Cheung G., Rensvold R. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance // Structural Equation Modeling. 2002. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 233–255.
Schoot R. van de, Tummers L., Lugtig P., Kluytmans A., Hox J., Muthén B. Choosing between Scylla and Charybdis? A Comparison of Scalar, Partial and the Novel Possibility of Approximate Measurement Invariance // Frontiers in Psychology. 2013. No. 4. P. 1–15.
Asparouhov T., Muthén B. Multiple-group Factor Analysis Alignment. Mplus Web Notes: No. 18. 2013. URL: http://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote18.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
Horn J.L., McArdle J.J. A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invariance in Aging Research // Experimental Aging Research. Routledge, 1992. Vol. 18. No. 3/4. P. 117–144.
Schwartz S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and 20 Countries // Advances in Experimеntal Social Psychology. Vol. 25 / Ed. by M. Zanna. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1992. P. 1–62.
Davidov E. A Cross-Country And Cross-Time Comparison Of The Human Values Measurements With The Second Round Of The European Social Survey // Survey Research Methods. 2008. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 33–46.
Thurstone L.L. Multiple-Factor Analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947.
Byrne B., Shavelson R., Muthén B. Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement in Variance // Psychological Bulletin. 1989. Vol. 105. No. 3. P. 456–466.
Meredith W. Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance // Psychometrika. 1993. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 525–543.
Vandenberg R.J., Lance C.E. A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research // Organizational Methods Research. 2000. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 4–70.
Крупенкова Н.В. Социологическое измерение: становление моделей с латентными переменными // Социология: 4М, 2008. № 26; 27.
Девятко И.Ф. Диагностическая процедура в социологии: очерк истории и теории. М.: Наука, 1993.
Davidov E., Meuleman B., Cieciuch J., Schmidt P. Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research // Public Opnion Quarterly (в печати).
Steenkamp J., Baumgartner H. Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross- National Consumer Research // Journal of Consumer Research 1998. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 78–107.
Milfont T., Fischer R. Testing Measurement Invariance across Groups: Applications in Cross-Cultural Research // Intenational Journal of Psychological Research. 2010. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 111–121.
Muthén B., Asparouhov T. BSEM Measurement Invariance Analysis. Mplus Web Notes: No. 17. 2013. URL: http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/ webnote17.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
Bilsky W., Janik M., Schwartz S.H. The Structural Organization of Human Values-Evidence from Three Rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2010. Vol. 42, № 5. P. 759–776.
Diamantopoulos A., Papadopoulos N. Assessing the Cross-National Invariance of Formative Measures: Guidelines for International Business Researchers // Journal of International Business Studies. Nature Publishing Group, 2009. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 360–370.
Fitzgerald R., Widdop S., Gray M., Collins D. Testing for Equivalence Using Cross-National Cognitive Interviewing. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys Working Papers. 2009. URL: http://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/125132/ CCSS-Working-Paper-No-01.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
Schwartz S., Bilsky W. Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987. Vol. 53. No. 3. P. 550–562.
Schwartz S.H. et al. Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 103. No. 4. P. 663–688.
Schwartz S.H., Melech G., Lehmann A., Burgess S., Harris M., Owens V. Extending The Cross-Cultural Validity Of The Theory Of Basic Human Values With A Different Method Of Measurement // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2001. Vol. 32. No. 5. P. 519–542.
Schwartz S. A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations Across Nations. 2003. P. 259–319 // URL: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/ core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf (date of access 24.11.2013).
Davidov E., Schmidt P., Schwartz S.H. Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2008. Vol. 72. No. 3. P. 420–445.
Davidov E., Schmidt P. Are Values in the Benelux Countries Comparable? Testing for Equivalence with the European Social Survey 2004-5 // Measuring meaningful data in Social Research / Ed. by G. Loosveldt, M. Swygedouw, B. Cambré. Leuven: Acco, 2008. P. 373–386.
Davidov E., Dülmer H., Schlüter E., Schmidt P., Meuleman B. Using a Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explain Cross-Cultural Measurement Noninvariance // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2012. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 558–575.
Knoppen D., Saris W.E. Do We Have to Combine Values in the Schwartz’ Human Values Scale? A Comment on the Davidov Studies // Survey Research Methods. 2009. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 91–103.
Saris W., Knoppen D., Schwartz S.H. Operationalizing the Theory of Human Values: Balancing Homogeneity of of Reflective Items and Theoretical Coverage // Survey Research Methods. 2013. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 29–44.
Harzing A.-W. Does Language Influence Response Styles? A Test of the Cultural Accommodation Hypothesis in Fourteen Countries // Ongoing Themes in Psycholy of Culture. (Online Edition) / Ed. by B.N. Setiadi et al. Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2004.
Jowell R., Roberts C., Fitzgerald R., Eva G. Measuring Attitudes Cross-nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. SAGE, 2007.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels J., Billiet J., Cambré B. Adjustment for Acquiescence in the Assessment of the Construct Equivalence of Likert-Type Score Items // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2003. Vol. 34. No. 6. P. 702–722.
Van Herk H., Poortinga Y.H., Verhallen T.M.M. Response Styles in Rating Scales: Evidence of Method Bias in Data From Six EU Countries // Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology. 2004. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 346–360.
Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation // Journal of Marketing Research. 2001. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 143–156.
Johnson T. The Relation Between Culture and Response Styles: Evidence From 19 Countries // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2005. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 264–277.
Smith P.B. Communication Styles as Dimensions of National Culture // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2011. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 216–233.
Wothke W. Nonpositive Definite Matrices in Structural Modeling // Testing Structural Equation Models / Ed. by K. Bollen, J.S. Long. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1993. P. 256–293.
Muthen L., Muthen B. Mplus. User’s Guide. Muthen & Muthen, 2013.
Brown T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. The Guilford Press, 2006.
Cheung G., Rensvold R. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance // Structural Equation Modeling. 2002. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 233–255.
Schoot R. van de, Tummers L., Lugtig P., Kluytmans A., Hox J., Muthén B. Choosing between Scylla and Charybdis? A Comparison of Scalar, Partial and the Novel Possibility of Approximate Measurement Invariance // Frontiers in Psychology. 2013. No. 4. P. 1–15.
Asparouhov T., Muthén B. Multiple-group Factor Analysis Alignment. Mplus Web Notes: No. 18. 2013. URL: http://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote18.pdf (date of access: 24.11.2013).
