Measurement invariance of social axioms

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH

This study pays tribute to Kwok Leung (1958 – 2015) (see Bond, 2016; Bond, Van de Vijver, Morris, & Gelfand, 2016), who was a front runner in numerous methodological and analytic breakthroughs in cross-cultural research (e.g., Leung & Bond, 1989; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Beginning in 1979 (Figure 1) he and his colleague Michael Harris Bond (Bond, 2016) undertook foundational work that led to the publication of the first article on social axioms (Leung et al., 2002). The groundwork for understanding social axioms was laid by Bond and Leung (Bond, 2016, p. 174):

Measurement invariance of social axioms

Multi-item surveys, such as the SAS, are often utilised to examine scores on latent factors for across group comparisons (Van de Schoot, Schmidt, & De Beuckelaer,2015). Thus, checking for measurement invariance (MI) is an important requirement for cross-cultural research in order to address the development of culturally appropriate measuring instruments (Van de Schoot, Lugtig, & Hox, 2012; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Background to this study

South Africa is a multi-cultural society that, in accordance with a classification system originating in Apartheid (1948-1994), is classified in terms of four main ethno￾cultural groups. These groups are referred to as Blacks (individuals of African descent), who constitute 79% of the population; Coloureds (individuals of mixed descent), who constitute 9% of the population; Indians/Asians (individuals of Asian descent), who constitute 3% of the population; and Whites (individuals of European descent), who constitute 9% of the population (Statistics South Africa, 2012).
According to Van de Schoot et al. (2015), a large number of studies examining the MI of survey scales have demonstrated that it is very difficult to achieve strict MI,where measurement parameters are precisely equivalent (i.e., enforced to zero tolerance related to deviations) across groups. Researchers frequently intentionally disregard MI and make comparisons of latent factor means between groups despite the fact that the psychometric properties to conduct such comparisons were not found (i.e., MI was not achieved). However, if MI is not demonstrated this means thatrespondents did not have the same understanding of the survey items. Consequently, no valid comparisons between latent factor means are possible (Van de Schoot et al., 2015).

Aim and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to contribute towards previous research efforts (e.g., Malham & Saucier, 2014) by testing the measurement invariance of the SASII parsimonious model (Barnard, et al., manuscript in preparation) across male and female groups in a South African sample.

READ  Key Concepts in the New Institutional Economics

Cross-cultural personality assessment in South Africa

Personality research in South Africa has gained momentum in the past 10 years (Meiring, Van de Vijver, Rothmann, & Barrick, 2005; Taylor, 2000; Visser & Viviers, 2010) and personality tests are the most frequently used psychometric tests in South Africa (Laher, 2010). The five-factor structure, namely Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness, of the FFM has been largely replicated in the multi-cultural South African context (Laher, 2010). The personality dimension of Openness has been difficult to replicate (e.g., Cheung, et al., 2001; Fetvadjiev & Van de Vijver, 2015) and this factor remains problematic in comparison to Western targets (Laher, 2010). However, many of these findings may be due to issues of data quality rather than model applicability (McCrae et al., 2005).

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 
1.1 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.2.1 Values and culture
1.2.2 Generalised beliefs
1.2.3 Measurement invariance of social axioms
1.2.4 Social axioms and their relation to personality outcomes
1.2.5 Specific research problems
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 11
CHAPTER 2:
2.1 MANUSCRIPT
CHAPTER 4: 4.1 MANUSCRIPT
CHAPTER5:DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 5.2 RESEARCH AIM RECONSIDERED
5.3 CONCLUSIONS EMANATING FROM THE STUDY
5.3.1   Manuscript 1: The factor structure of the Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) in the South African context
5.3.2   Manuscript 2: Measurement invariance of social axioms in South Africa
5.3.3   Manuscript 3: Exploring the nomological network between social axioms and the five-factor model of personality in South Africa                                                                       5.6.2 Statistical contribution of the study                                                                                 5.7 CONCLUSION
ADDENDUM A: CROSS-CULTURAL APPLICATION OF SASII IN SA 

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts