Reconsidering the problem of data equivalence in international marketing research: Contrasting approaches based on CFA and the Rasch model for measurement

Purpose – The paper investigates the suitability of the Rasch model for establishing data equivalence. The results based on a real data set are contrasted with findings from standard procedures based on CFA methods.Design/methodology/approach – Sinkovics et al.'s data on technophobia was used and re‐evaluated using both classical test theory (CTT) (multiple‐group structural equations modelling) and Rasch measurement theory.Findings – Data equivalence in particular and measurement in general cannot be addressed without reference to theory. While both procedures can be considered best practice approaches within their respective theoretical foundation of measurement, the Rasch model provides some theoretical virtues. Measurement derived from data that fit the Rasch model seems to be approximated by classical procedures reasonably well. However, the reverse is not necessarily true.Practical implications – The more widespread application of Rasch models would lead to a stronger justification of measurement, in...

[1]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  AN ALTERNATE APPROACH TO ASSESSING CROSS-CULTURAL MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE IN ADVERTISING RESEARCH , 2005 .

[3]  John R. Rossiter,et al.  Reminder: A horse is a horse , 2005 .

[4]  Ujwal Kayande,et al.  How fine is C-OAR-SE? A generalizability theory perspective on Rossiter's procedure , 2005 .

[5]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment , 2005 .

[6]  Adam W. Meade,et al.  A Comparison of Item Response Theory and Confirmatory Factor Analytic Methodologies for Establishing Measurement Equivalence/Invariance , 2004 .

[7]  Jagdip Singh,et al.  Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example , 2004 .

[8]  Bryan S. Schaffer,et al.  A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for Organizational Research: A Best- Practices Approach , 2003 .

[9]  John R. Rossiter,et al.  The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing , 2002 .

[10]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  Reluctance to use technology-related products: Development of a technophobia scale , 2002 .

[11]  R. Vandenberg.  Toward a Further Understanding of and Improvement in Measurement Invariance Methods and Procedures , 2002 .

[12]  S. Embretson,et al.  Item response theory for psychologists , 2000 .

[13]  Bodo B. Schlegelmilch,et al.  Data Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research: A Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Latent Trait Theory Based Approaches , 1999 .

[14]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research , 1998 .

[15]  Xitao Fan.  Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An Empirical Comparison of their Item/Person Statistics , 1998 .

[16]  Hans Baumgartner,et al.  Multi-Group Latent Variable Models for Varying Numbers of Items and Factors with Cross-National and Longitudinal Applications , 1998 .

[17]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Cross-cultural comparisons using non-invariant measurement items , 1998 .

[18]  F.J.R. van de Vijver,et al.  Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research , 1997 .

[19]  Michael R. Mullen.  Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research , 1995 .

[20]  Jagdip Singh,et al.  Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research , 1995 .

[21]  Hans-Christian Röglin.  Technikängste und wie man damit umgeht , 1994 .

[22]  Keith F Widaman,et al.  Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  E. Kistler,et al.  Einstellungen zum technischen Fortschritt : Technikakzeptanz im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich , 1991 .

[24]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  Myths and realities of computerphobia: A meta-analysis , 1990 .

[25]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  Computers, classroom, instruction, and the computerphobic university student , 1990 .

[26]  D. Andrich.  A General Form of Rasch's Extended Logistic Model for Partial Credit Scoring , 1988 .

[27]  Joseph O. Rentz.  Generalizability Theory: A Comprehensive Method for Assessing and Improving the Dependability of Marketing Measures , 1987 .

[28]  Craig Brod,et al.  Technostress: The Human Cost Of The Computer Revolution , 1984 .

[29]  C. Craig,et al.  International Marketing Research , 1983 .

[30]  Linda L. Price,et al.  Development of a Scale to Measure Use Innovativeness , 1983 .

[31]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[32]  G. Masters.  A rasch model for partial credit scoring , 1982 .

[33]  Alvin J. Silk,et al.  Measure Unreliability: A Hidden Threat to Cross-National Marketing Research? , 1981 .

[34]  A. Raub.  CORRELATES OF COMPUTER ANXIETY IN COLLEGE STUDENTS , 1981 .

[35]  E. Hirschman.  Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity , 1980 .

[36]  Gilbert A. Churchill.  A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs , 1979 .

[37]  D. Andrich.  A rating formulation for ordered response categories , 1978 .

[38]  G. Rasch,et al.  On Specific Objectivity. An Attempt at Formalizing the Request for Generality and Validity of Scientific Statements in Symposium on Scientific Objectivity, Vedbaek, Mau 14-16, 1976. , 1977 .

[39]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[40]  G. Rasch.  On General Laws and the Meaning of Measurement in Psychology , 1961 .