Abstract:Individualism and collectivism are some of the most widely applied concepts in cultural and cross-cultural research. They are commonly applied by scholars who use arithmetic means or sum indexes of items on a scale to examine the potential similarities and differences in samples from various countries. For many reasons, cross-cultural research implicates numerous methodological and statistical pitfalls. The aim of this article is to summarize some of those pitfalls, particularly the problem of measurement non-invariance, which stems from the different understandings of questionnaire items or even different character of constructs between countries. This potential bias is reduced by latent mean comparisons performed with Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Measurement Invariance procedure within a Structural Equation Modeling framework. These procedures have been neglected by many researchers in the field of cross-cultural psychology, however. In this article, we compare ‘traditional’ (comparison of arithmetic means) and ‘invariant’ (latent mean comparison) approaches and provide necessary R source codes for replications of measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons within other scales. Both approaches are demonstrated with real data gathered on an Independent and Interdependent Self-Scale from 1386 participants across six countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania). Our results revealed considerable differences between the ‘invariant’ and ‘traditional’ approaches, especially in post-hoc analyses. Since ‘invariant’ results can be considered less biased, this finding suggests that the currently prevalent method of comparing the arithmetic means of cross-cultural scales of individualism and collectivism can potentially cause biased results.

The measurement equivalence of instruments and its application in nursing research

Translation, Revision and Assessment of Reliability and Validity of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale

Testing the Measurement Equivalence of Personality Adjective Items Across Cultures

Measuring up: the significance of measurement invariance in cardiovascular research

Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research.

On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests

Measuring the Nursing Work Environment in Mainland China

Nonequivalence of measurement in latent variable modeling of multigroup data: A sensitivity analysis.

Assessing measurement invariance of the SEGUE framework among Chinese and Ghanaian patients: A cross-sectional study

Assessing measurement in health: Beyond reliability and validity

Translation and equivalence: the Profile of Mood States Short Form in English and Chinese

Improving Scale Equivalence by Increasing Access to Scale-Specific Information

Measuring Asian nurses' organizational commitment: a critical analysis of the psychometric properties of two organizational commitment instruments

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

Measurement Invariance of the Moral Vitalism Scale Across 28 Cultural Groups.

Measurement equivalence across gender and education in the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling elderly Taiwanese

Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: Traditional and new models.

Reliability and Vaiidatioa of the Social Comparison Orientation Scale

Invariance: What Does Measurement Invariance Allow Us to Claim?

Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies

Efficient and powerful equivalency test on combined mean and variance with application to diagnostic device comparison studies