Browsing by Subject "Measurement equivalence"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines(Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) Hult, G. T. M.; Ketchen, D. J.; Griffith, D. A.; Finnegan, C. A.; Gonzalez-Padron, T.; Harmancioglu, N.; Huang, Y.; Talay, M. B.; Cavusgil, S. T.Data equivalence refers to the extent to which the elements of a research design have the same meaning, and can be applied in the same way, in different cultural contexts. Failure to establish data equivalence in cross-cultural studies may bias empirical results and theoretical inferences. Although several authors have encouraged researchers to ensure high levels of data equivalence, no study has assessed the status of the field in relation to compliance with data equivalence standards. Accordingly, this study examines three aspects of data equivalence (construct equivalence, measurement equivalence, and data collection equivalence) within 167 studies that involve cross-cultural data published in the Journal of International Business Studies, Management International Review, Journal of World Business, Strategic Management Journal and the Academy of Management Journal from 1995 to 2005. The findings indicate that international business researchers report insufficient information in relation to data equivalence issues, thus limiting confidence in the findings of many cross-cultural studies. To enhance future research, a guideline for procedures for researchers to follow and report in establishing data equivalence is offered. © 2008 Academy of International Business.Item Open Access The measurement invariance of university students’ ratings of instruction(Hacettepe University, 2019) Kalender, İlker; Berberoğlu, G.The invariance in the scores of student rating of instruction was studied across high and low achieving classrooms. Achievement levels were determined by the two criteria such as self-reported expected grades and end of semester grades. The data included 625 classrooms. The equality of (i) factorial structure, (ii) factor loadings, (iii) item intercepts, and (iv) error variances of the 7 item rating scale were studied across these groups. With respect to self-reported expected grades, high and low achieving classes produced invariant scale characteristics except strict invariance. On the other hand, with respect to end of semester grades, full equality in item intercepts and error variances were not achieved. It seems that comparing the rating results across the classrooms and courses independent of the achievement levels of the students may be misleading especially for the high-stake decisions since the origin of the scale is not the same across high and low achieving groups.