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.

MIsgivings about measurement invariance

The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science.

Measurement Invariance in Intellectual and Developmental Disability Research

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

Measurement Invariance Testing Works

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

Measuring up: the significance of measurement invariance in cardiovascular research

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

Testing the Measurement Equivalence of Personality Adjective Items Across Cultures

Invariance: What Does Measurement Invariance Allow Us to Claim?

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

Difficulties of Measuring Culture in Privacy Studies

A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research

Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance

Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary Tool

Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: reviewing three decades of research

It Matters: Reference Indicator Selection in Measurement Invariance Tests

Improving measurement-invariance assessments: correcting entrenched testing deficiencies

A checklist for testing measurement invariance

Bayesian penalty methods for evaluating measurement invariance in moderated nonlinear factor analysis.