Nonequivalence in cross-cultural research.

Most researchers do what is possible to conduct comparative research with equivalent samples. However, the very nature of cross-cultural research makes that a difficult goal to achieve. Often investigators are left with what they believe are good approximations of construct and methodological equivalence. It is probably not possible given the influence of culture specific factors to ever create perfect methodological equivalence in the selection of relevant constructs and in data collection in all comparative cultures. Poortinga (1989) recognized this dilemma and suggested several approaches for dealing with nonequivalent data. Cross-cultural studies will in reality be interpreted and published even when comparisons are made with nonequivalent data. However, Poortinga suggest that the researcher can take steps to reduce nonequivalence by identifying and analyzing the research elements that are equivalent separately from those that don’t meet criteria. In research employing attitude scales we have statistical methods to identify nonequivalent items and remove these from analysis (Ommundsen & Larsen, 1997; Ommundsen & Larsen, 1999; Ommundsen, Hak, Morch, Larsen & Van der Veer, 2002; Ommundsen, Van der Veer, Van Le, Krumov, & Larsen, 2007).

Another way of looking at the nonequivalence issue is to examine it as important information about the cultures investigated. What are the reasons for the nonequivalence and what does that tell us about psychology in these societies? Cultural differences may be informed by equivalent data, but also by why some data is not equivalent. Many hypotheses for further research can be developed from these methodological issues and problems.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 959