Search

Background: This study investigates the extent to which the GHQ-12 exhibits configural, metric and scalar invariance across six ethnic groups in Britain and Northern Ireland, using the UK Household Longitudinal Study (N = 35 410). Methods: A confirmatory factor analysis was carried out on a white British group in order to establish an adequate measurement model. Secondly, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in order to assess measurement invariance. A sensitivity analysis comparing summated and latent means across groups was carried out. Finally, revised estimates of scale reliability were derived using two different methods. Results: A one-factor model including correlated error terms on the negatively phrased items showed superior fit in all ethnic groups. Tests for equal factor loadings and intercepts also showed adequate fit demonstrating metric and scalar invariance. Latent and summated scale estimates of mean group differences were similar for all groups. Scale reliability using McDonald's ω is lower than when using the more conventional Cronbach's α. Reliability across groups is reasonably consistent. Conclusions: We find that the GHQ-12 does not display obvious bias in regard to ethnic groups in the UK and that valid comparisons across these groups can be made for the purposes of population research. Caution is needed when using as a screening tool for individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System justification is a widely researched topic in social and political psychology. One major measurement instrument in system justification research is the General System Justification Scale (G‐SJS). This scale has been used, among others, for comparisons across social groups in different countries. Such comparisons rely on the assumption that the scale is measurement equivalent. However, this assumption has never been comprehensively tested. Thus, the present two studies assessed the measurement equivalence of the G‐SJS following classic measurement equivalence guidelines (i.e., multigroup confirmatory factor analyses) in Study 1 and using a new method for comparing larger numbers of groups in Study 2 (i.e., alignment optimization). In Study 1, we analysed the measurement equivalence in Great Britain (n = 444), Germany (n = 454), and France (n = 463). In Study 2, we used a publicly available dataset consisting of 66 samples from 30 countries (N = 13,495) to again assess the measurement equivalence of the scale. Results indicated (partial) metric equivalence, but not scalar equivalence in both studies. Overall, the studies indicate that mean comparisons across the examined countries are not warranted with the current form of the G‐SJS. The scale needs to be revised for valid cross‐country comparisons of means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With a recent surge of research on narcissism, narcissism questionnaires are increasingly being translated and applied in various countries. The measurement invariance of an instrument across countries is a precondition for being able to compare scores across countries. We investigated the cross-cultural measurement invariance of three narcissism questionnaires (Brief Pathological Narcissism Inventory [B-PNI], Narcissistic Personality Inventory [NPI], and Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire [NARQ]) and mean-level differences across samples from the United States (N = 2,464), the United Kingdom (N = 307), and Germany (N = 925). Overall, the B-PNI and NARQ functioned equivalently for the U.S. and U.K. participants. More violations of measurement invariance were found between Germany and the combined U.S. and U.K. samples, and for the NPI. In the B-PNI and NARQ, Americans scored higher than individuals from the United Kingdom regarding agentic aspects (self-sacrificing self-enhancement, admiration), while Germans scored lower than both Americans and U.K. individuals regarding antagonistic (entitlement rage, rivalry) and neurotic (hiding the self, contingent self-esteem) aspects. More inconsistent results were found for NPI facets. When noninvariance was present, observed means yielded biased results. Thus, the degree of measurement invariance across translated instrument versions should be considered in cross-cultural comparisons, even with culturally similar countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Health and Safety Executive Stress Indicator Tool is a short questionnaire developed in the UK for the screening of common psychosocial risk factors leading to work-related stress. Previous research showed that in both the UK and Italy this test fits the same seven-factor solution. Building upon previous findings and by using multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis we investigated the degree of measurement equivalence of the Italian version of the test with its original UK version. Furthermore, we advanced the validation of the tool in Italy by exploring the correlations of its subscales with stress-related outcomes. Two samples of workers were available for analyses: 1,298 Italian employees of private-sector organizations and a sample of 7,589 UK employees from organizations of the same type. Results replicated previous findings: A 7-factor solution of the Indicator Tool was found to be equivalent across the Italian and UK samples. Furthermore, the analyses supported factor variance and factor covariance equivalence in addition to metric equivalence. The Indicator Tool subscales showed significant correlations in the expected direction with stress-related outcomes. The Italian version of the Indicator Tool behaves very consistently with its UK version and may be used for the screening of psychosocial risks in Italian workplaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) is a widely used patient reported outcome in osteoarthritis. An important, but frequently overlooked, aspect of validating health outcome measures is to establish if items exhibit differential item functioning (DIF). That is, if respondents have the same underlying level of an attribute, does the item give the same score in different subgroups or is it biased towards one subgroup or another. The aim of the study was to explore DIF in the Likert format WOMAC for the first time in a UK osteoarthritis population with respect to demographic, social, clinical and psychological factors. Methods: The sample comprised a community sample of 763 people with osteoarthritis who participated in the Somerset and Avon Survey of Health. The WOMAC was explored for DIF by gender, age, social deprivation, social class, employment status, distress, body mass index and clinical factors. Ordinal regression models were used to identify DIF items. Results: After adjusting for age, two items were identified for the physical functioning subscale as having DIF with age identified as the DIF factor for 2 items, gender for 1 item and body mass index for 1 item. For the WOMAC pain subscale, for people with hip osteoarthritis one item was identified with age-related DIF. The impact of the DIF items rarely had a significant effect on the conclusions of group comparisons. Conclusions: Overall, the WOMAC performed well with only a small number of DIF items identified. However, as DIF items were identified in for the WOMAC physical functioning subscale it would be advisable to analyse data taking into account the possible impact of the DIF items when weight, gender or especially age effects, are the focus of interest in UK-based osteoarthritis studies. Similarly for the WOMAC pain subscale in people with hip osteoarthritis it would be worthwhile to analyse data taking into account the possible impact of the DIF item when age comparisons are of primary interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: This study addressed whether 360-degree feedback ratings made by subordinates are equivalent across national cultures (Great Britain, Hong Kong, Japan, U.S.). Employees’ ratings of their leaders were collected via a company’s existing 360-degree feedback survey. A two-factor baseline model was developed using exploratory factor analysis and tested across cultures utilizing confirmatory factor analysis techniques. Results revealed differences in factor form, suggesting that the constructs underlying the survey and their relationship to the survey items differed across cultures. These results emphasize the need for multinational companies to use caution when transporting human resources practices, such as 360-degree feedback, to international locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the cross-cultural equivalence of two composite measures of environmental concern derived from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP): the pro-environmental views scale (PEVS) and the environmental awareness scale (EAS). Item response theory and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis were employed to evaluate comprehensively the target measures while focusing on a concrete cross-cultural comparison between Taiwan and the UK. The results indicated that both measures show nonequivalence to different extents. The PEVS presents substantial problems of validity in Taiwan, whereas in the UK it is a meaningful unidimensional measure if one item is excluded. Difficulties with construct equivalence, translation, and method bias were identified as potential causes of the scale's nonequivalence. The EAS is a suitable measure within both cultures, but it is affected by the cumulative effect of differential item functioning (DIF) that makes the comparison of group means imprecise. Taiwanese respondents' salient tendency to endorse higher response categories than expected for their latent levels of EA was determined as a potential cause of DIF, which may be related to bias induced by the response categories' labels. Above all, this study reminds the importance of examining carefully the measurements employed in cross-cultural research to avoid reporting findings that could be potentially misleading. • Two ISSP-based measures of environmental concern are nonequivalent across cultures. • The pro-environmental views scale is valid for the UK but not for Taiwan. • The environmental awareness scale (EAS) shows metric but not scalar equivalence. • DIF increases the group difference in scale scores on the EAS, favoring Taiwan. • Construct, method, and item biases were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]