EXAMINING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF

ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES

IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:

A CAUTIONARY NOTE

Susan P. Douglas*

Stern School of Business

New York University

and

Edwin J. Nijssen

University of Nijmegen

Revised, April 2002

The support of the Unilever Board for this research is gratefully acknowledged.

* contact author

44 West 4th St., KMEC 7-67

New York, NY 10012-1126

Tel: (212) 998-0418

Fax: (212) 995-4221

E-mail: sdouglas@stern.nyu.edu

ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:

A CAUTIONARY NOTE

ABSTRACT

Cross-national studies may be flawed through “borrowing” scales used in domestic studies, without examining their relevance and equivalence in other countries and contexts. Examining construct equivalence is an essential first step in the design of cross-national and multi-country studies. An important aspect is examining the equivalence in meaning and salience of a construct in all countries or contexts studied. Unless this is established, erroneous or misleading conclusions about the nature and significance of the construct in that context are likely to result. The importance of examining construct equivalence in cross-national research is illustrated based on a series of studies applying the CETSCALE in the Netherlands.

Keywords: cross-national research, construct equivalence, CETSCALE

ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:

A CAUTIONARY NOTE

INTRODUCTION

With the globalization of markets and international market expansion of many companies, increasing interest has been shown in conducting cross-national or multi-country research. Surveys of this research, for example Mintu, Calantone and Gassenheimer (1994), and Sojka and Tansuhaj (1995), indicate a growth in the number of such studies. Particularly notable is the increasing diversity of environments and contexts in which marketing and consumption behavior is being studied. Many of these studies are extensions or replications of a study initially conducted in a domestic context. Often the same conceptual framework, constructs, and scales as used in the domestic study, are applied in another country or context. Observed differences between the two countries are then attributed to ‘cultural” or contextual factors.

Such cross-national or multi-country studies involve a comparison between two or more sample populations with regard to certain properties or attributes, for example, consumer attitudes or behavior (van der Vijver and Leung 1997). For example, consumers in the US, Denmark, Greece and India may be compared with regard to attitudes towards advertising (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski and Netemeyer 1993). Comparisons can, however, only be made with regard to properties that are equivalent. Apples and oranges, for example, can only be compared with their characteristics as fruit, neither as an orange nor as an apple. Similarly, in marketing studies, the equivalence of the marketing or consumption behavior studied has to be established for the comparison to be meaningful.

In cross-cultural research in psychology, establishing equivalence is viewed as key in making valid cross-cultural comparisons (Poortinga 1989). Equivalence is viewed as specific to a given cross-cultural comparison, and a function of the characteristics of the research instrument, and the cultural groups or contexts compared. Three different levels of equivalence have been identified: construct equivalence, measurement unit equivalence and scalar equivalence (van de Vijver and Leung 1997). Construct equivalence requires that a construct or concept occurs and has the same meaning across countries and contexts. Measurement unit equivalence requires that the measurement unit is equivalent, for example, monetary units will need to be converted to be equivalent, or temperature measured on a Celsius scale to a Kelvin scale or vice versa. Scalar equivalence requires that response to a given scale is equivalent or has the same meaning and interpretation across contexts.

In marketing, attention has been typically focused on measurement and scalar equivalence issues, (Mullen 1995, Singh 1995, Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). These can only be examined once data have been collected. Relatively less concern has been shown with assessing conceptual or construct equivalence in terms of the relevance of the construct in a given research context prior to data collection. Unless, however, the salience of constructs and the need for modification of the related instrument in a given context is addressed in the early stages of research, the validity and meaning of research results, is open to question and may result in erroneous or misleading conclusions about the groups compared.

The purpose of the present paper is to highlight the importance of assessing the relevance of a construct and its operationalization in each research context or setting when designing cross-cultural research. This is particularly crucial where the measurement instrument is “borrowed,” i.e., a scale developed and validated in one country or context is used in another country or context that differs with regard to certain characteristics likely to affect that construct. In this case, the researcher needs to examine whether the construct has the same underlying meaning or significance in another country or context and hence the same measurement instrument can be used to effectively tap this construct in both contexts. This issue is illustrated by a study using the CETSCALE, a measure of consumer ethnocentrism, in the Netherlands. Consumer ethnocentrism provides an appropriate construct to examine since it was initially identified in the U.S. The CETSCALE, an instrument to measure consumer ethnocentrism was initially developed and validated in the U.S. (Shimp and Sharma 1987) and has also been examined in other large industrialized countries such as Japan, Germany and France (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991).

The Netherlands provides a markedly different context from these countries with regard to factors related to ethnocentrism, as for example, nationalism (Adorno et al 1950) and national pride. Such feelings are not strong among the Dutch who exhibit lack of concern for national sovereignty. For example, one study found that members of the Dutch Parliament were not familiar with the words of the Dutch national anthem (Scheepers, Felling and Peters 1989). In addition, the Netherlands differs from the US in aspects likely to influence consumer attitudes toward foreign products/brands, such as interaction with other nationalities and exposure to ideas and products from other cultures and nations. In particular, younger Dutch people travel extensively and are exposed to a range of ideas and influences from other countries and backgrounds.

Issues associated with examining construct salience and equivalence in different cultural contexts are first discussed, together with the dangers associated with assuming that a construct is equivalent without prior examination of the issue (Berry 1969, 1989, Leung and Zhang 1996). The construct of consumer ethnocentrism is then examined, together with its applicability in the Netherlands. The key findings of the illustrative study are next reviewed and some directions for conducting future cross-cultural research suggested.

ASSESSING CONSTRUCT EQUIVALENCE CROSS-NATIONALLY

Interest in the cross-cultural equivalence of constructs and measures has long been a central theme in cross-cultural psychology (van de Vijver and Leung 1997, Lonner and Adamopoulos 1997). Cross-cultural psychology is concerned with testing the universality and generality of psychological theories and concepts developed in one single country or context. It examines variations in attitudes and behavior in different countries to broaden and refine existing concepts, and to stimulate more rigorous conceptual and operational definitions of constructs (Poortinga 1989). Consequently, a key focus of the discipline is identifying factors that challenge the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.

In the early stages of research the conceptualization of the theoretical construct relevant to the study and the framing of research questions can give rise to issues of construct non-equivalence and bias. According to Sears (1961) conceptual or construct equivalence is defined as whether a given construct or concept has the same meaning and is equally relevant in all countries and cultures. Even where relevant, the constructs studied may not be expressed in the same ways or behavior in other countries and contexts. For example, the meaning and relevance of the self-concept or being a good son or daughter has been found to differ substantially in the Chinese and North American cultures (Ho 1996, Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In Asian cultures the self-concept encompasses relations of the self to others, as well as individual feelings of self-worth as in Western cultures. Similarly in Asian cultures being a good son or daughter includes a much broader range of duties and obligations than in Western society. This implies that the construct cannot be operationalized in the same way in different countries or cultures and that different measurement instruments will be needed.

In marketing, concern has been expressed with regard to the cross national applicability of constructs (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski and Netemeyer 1993, Lee and Green 1991, Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987, van Raaij 1978), but little empirical research to assess these issues has been conducted. In particular, the need to “decenter” studies, i.e. eliminate the dominance of single country or societal context in developing the conceptual framework (Werner and Campbell 1970) has seldom been considered.

Examination of construct equivalence and bias is especially critical where a theoretical construct and a related measurement instrument have been developed in a specific country and socio-cultural setting (Craig and Douglas 2000). Many attitudinal scales used in marketing such as the CETSCALE, or MARKOR (a measure of marketing orientation developed by Kohli and Jaworski 1993) have been developed in the U.S. Their equivalence in other contexts needs to be established, particularly where these contexts differ with regard to key parameters. This is important for any scale where the construct is strongly socially or culturally embedded, as, for example, shopping orientation, materialism, marketing orientation, etc.

Once data have been collected, construct non-equivalence across cultures and contexts can be assessed, based on the structural or configural equivalence of a measure, as, for example, based on internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis, structural equation modeling and other statistical techniques (Labouvie and Ruetsch 1995, Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). If, however, the researcher is concerned with developing a reliable and valid measure of the construct in a given context, a preliminary phase of research needs to be conducted. This should focus on examining differences in definition, in relevant domains or inappropriateness of item content across cultures (Cronbach and Meehl 1995, van de Vijver and Leung 1997). Nomological networks or convergent and discriminant validity of the construct should be studied to assess non-equivalence (Embretson 1983). These issues are next examined in relation to the CETSCALE in the Netherlands.

THE CONCEPT OF CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

The concept of consumer ethnocentrism originated in the more general concept of ethnocentrism. This is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “an attitude that one’s own group (race or people) is superior.” According to LeVine and Campbell (1972), “the symbols and values of one’s own ethnic or national group become objects of pride and attachment, whereas symbols of other groups may become objects of contempt.” The concept is thus closely linked to patriotism and political-economic conservatism and has been studied in that context (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Nevitt Sanford 1950).

As applied to consumer behavior, ethnocentrism has been viewed as beliefs held by U.S. consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma 1987). Purchasing imported products is held to be wrong in that it potentially harms the domestic economy, causes loss of jobs, and is unpatriotic. In addition, to the extent that domestic products are viewed as superior, products from other countries (i.e. from outgroups) are objects of contempt to highly ethnocentric consumers.

A seventeen-item scale termed the CETSCALE was designed to measure this concept (Shimp and Sharma 1987). The scale was developed from a pool of 180 items elicited from over 800 consumers in the United States and subsequently refined in two successive studies on large samples. The reliability of the resultant seventeen-item scale was examined extensively in four large-scale studies, and showed high internal validity. It also exhibited discriminant validity relative to Adorno’s patriotism, political economic conservatism and dogmatism scales (1950). Shimp and Sharma (1987) also found a shortened ten-item version to have high internal consistency and external validity (Table 1). In addition, the CETSCALE showed predictive validity relative to general attitudes towards foreign-made products and purchase intentions of foreign-made cars.

The CETSCALE has been translated and used to assess consumer ethnocentrism in a number of other countries outside the U.S. (Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995, Good and Huddleston 1995). The results of these studies have been somewhat conflicting. One study based on student samples in the U.S., France, Japan and West Germany found evidence of internal consistency of the scale across all four countries, and a similar unidimensional factor structure (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991). Correlation with attitudes towards the home country as well as the importance of buying domestic products was also found. However, correlation with attitudes to buying foreign products was less strong in France, Japan and West Germany than in the U.S. Equally, Good and Huddleston (1995) found consumer ethnocentrism to predict buying intentions for domestic or foreign products in Poland, but not in Russia.

In addition, the countries where the CETSCALE has been found to be reliable, i.e. France, West Germany and Japan, are typically large highly developed countries with low levels of foreign imports, and a large internal market. This is likely to affect attitudes towards foreign products and perceptions that they are from “outgroups” (LeVine and Campbell 1972). In other countries, such as developing markets, or countries with high levels of foreign imports, conditions surrounding attitudes towards foreign products will differ (Balabanis, Diamantopoulos, Mueller and Melewar 2001). For example, in some product categories, foreign brands are positioned as high-end brands and are perceived as superior to domestic brands. Consequently, attitudes towards foreign products are positive.

Equally, in small open societies, the salience of the consumer ethnocentrism construct is open to question for several reasons. In the first place, ethnocentrism tends to be associated with feelings of nationalism and the superiority of the group to which one belongs (Adorno et al 1950). It is thus less likely to be salient in countries where nationalist feelings are less strong. Secondly, in small economies with high levels of foreign trade, imports of foreign goods and few major domestic manufacturers, feelings of consumer ethnocentrism and negative attitudes towards foreign products may be less pronounced, and have less impact on purchase behavior. Equally, they may take a different form or be expressed in different ways. For example, such attitudes may vary according to the product category. This is particularly likely to occur where domestic made or branded products are not available in various consumer product categories, and foreign brands are often market leaders.

The Netherlands provides an interesting test ground to examine this issue. The country is relatively small in terms of geographic area, i.e. 37,330 square kilometers, has a population of 14 million. It has extensive borders to the east with Germany and with Belgium to the south. In 1999, exports accounted for 55% of GDP, while foreign direct investment, a key measure of global integration, was the third highest of any country in the world (World Bank 2000). Furthermore, the major consumer goods companies, such as Unilever, Heineken, Douwe Egbert/Sara Lee and Philips are large multi-nationals that depend on markets outside the Netherlands for the majority of their sales. Over 70% of the assets of these multinationals are outside the Netherlands. As a result, they are regarded by the Dutch as ‘international” rather than national companies. Even among small companies the export sales ratio averages 45% (Central Bureau of Statistics, Netherlands).

The small size of the country and its central location also results in high levels of communication and flows of people, goods and ideas across neighboring borders. This results in awareness and openness to foreign brands and products. In numerous product markets, as, for example, cars, computers, there are no local manufacturers. Consequently, the range of consumer choice consists exclusively of foreign makes and brands. Hence, consumers readily acquire knowledge about and are familiar with different foreign brands and manufacturers.

The Dutch, particularly the younger generation, are well known for their lack of nationalist sentiments and concern for national sovereignty. The Dutch welcomed the euro, pointing out that it would make travel much easier, and enthusiastically embrace the concept of a fully integrated Europe. Patriotic groups such as the Daughters of the American Revolution are notably absent. This absence of nationalistic feelings is reinforced by a propensity to travel and ability to speak several languages. Most Dutch are fluent in English; many also speak German and some French (Wall Street Journal April 27 1998). Well over half the population take their vacations abroad, and an increasing number travel outside Europe. These factors suggest that consumer ethnocentrism, particularly insofar as it reflects attitudes about the morality of purchasing foreign products may not be salient and have limited applicability in the Netherlands. This was examined in two surveys conducted in the Netherlands.

USING THE CETSCALE IN THE NETHERLANDS

Research Approach

Some issues with regard to administering the CETSCALE in the Netherlands were initially uncovered in a consumer survey of brand preferences. The purpose of the study was to assess perceptions and associations for six international and domestic brands in two product categories, beer and soft drinks. The CETSCALE was included in the study and hypothesized to be related to preferences for domestic rather than international brands. Initial translation and pretesting of the CETSCALE raised some questions with regard to its use in the Netherlands. Subsequent analysis suggested that the construct was not structurally equivalent to that found in previous studies in the U.S.

This triggered another study focusing more explicitly on examining the applicability and dimensionality of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands. Two versions of a questionnaire were drawn up, one with a direct or literal translation of the scale and the second, a modified version adapting the statements to the Dutch context. The direct translation was intended to provide a base against which the modified questionnaire could be compared. Each questionnaire also contained a number of questions on related constructs such as patriotism, attitudes towards purchasing domestic (Dutch) products, and reluctance to buy foreign (German) products. These questionnaires were then administered to samples of consumers in the Netherlands. The findings are next discussed in more detail.

Preliminary Findings

A survey of over 1,000 Dutch consumers in three cities in the Netherlands, Nijmegen, Utrecht and Rotterdam provided some initial insights into the construct equivalence of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands. The questionnaire included a number of questions relating to preferences and associations for the six brands of beer and soft drinks, as well as some questions relating to foreign travel and involvement, and the ten-item version of the CETSCALE, using five-point Likert scales.

Some questions concerning the meaning of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands began to emerge when translating it into Dutch (Appendix A). Analysis of several iterations of pretesting revealed that the means on eight items were extremely skewed (i.e. below 2 on a 5-point Likert scale). The only exceptions were two items relating to purchase of foreign made products when domestic products were not available. The scale showed a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86). However, examination of the factor structure of the items suggested the existence of a two-dimensional structure rather than the unidimensional structure found by Shimp and Sharma. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation resulted in the identification of two factors (Table 2). The first factor clearly related to the core element of consumer ethnocentrism- reflecting preference for domestic products and a belief that the purchase of foreign made products would be potentially damaging to the Dutch economy. The second factor appeared to reflect a more nuanced attitude towards foreign products, i.e. that only products which were not available domestically, should be imported or purchased. Confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL 7) also showed that a two dimensional model provided a better fit for the data than a one-dimensional model. Another interesting finding was the relation of the factor structure to preferences for domestic soft drink brands. When the scale was constrained to a single factor, there was no relation to preferences for domestic soft drink brands. In the two-factor model both sets of factor scores were positively associated with preference for domestic brands.

These findings suggested that the construct of consumer ethnocentrism underlying the CETSCALE was two-dimensional in the Netherlands – one dimension consisting of core ethnocentrism items, the other of items relating to the availability of domestic products. Some differences were also observed based on age. Older consumers, especially over 40 were more likely to have negative attitudes to foreign products, though this was less marked among those with a college education. Overall, negative attitudes were less marked in the Netherlands, as compared with other countries, implying that it may be of less significance in purchase decisions, or only characterize a relatively limited number of people.

The Study

A study further probing potential construct bias in using the CETSCALE

in the Netherlands was then conducted. First, a preliminary phase of qualitative research was conducted to examine the significance and meaning of consumer ethnocentrism among Dutch consumers. This consisted of in-depth interviews relating to the construct, as also the meaning of different items and phrases used in the CETSCALE (based on a literal translation of items into Dutch). This again confirmed the problems associated with using a direct translation of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands, particularly concerning the items relating to the availability of domestic products (see Appendix A).

Based on these findings, two versions of the CETSCALE were developed (Appendix A). One was a direct or literal translation of the CETSCALE based on a back translation procedure. This was intended to provide a basis for comparison. The other was a modified version, adapting the items to clarify their meaning in the Dutch context. For example, “American products, first, last and foremost,” was translated as “In general, nothing beats products from your own country.” In both questionnaires, an additional item relating to the purchase of foreign products when domestic brands were not available was included. This was designed to balance the factor analysis and examine further the existence of a second factor relating to domestic product availability. Both versions also included two attitudinal constructs, patriotism and attitudes towards travel, to assess discriminant validity. Questions relating to two criterion constructs, preferences for domestic products and brands, and reluctance to buy foreign (German) products were also included (Appendix B).

The two versions of the questionnaire were administered to samples of 126 and 127 respondents respectively, in Nijmegen, a city in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Since Nijmegen is a university town, the educational level of the sample tended to be high; approximately half of the sample had a college education. There was also a slight bias towards younger consumers; over one-third of the sample was between 18-25 (Appendix C). The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents for the two questionnaire versions were approximately the same.

Data Analysis

The means and standard deviations for the two versions of the questionnaire were first examined to assess differences with regard to the skewedness of the distribution. Next, principal components analyses of both literal and modified versions of the CETSCALE based on 10 and 11 item versions were conducted to examine the underlying dimensionality of the construct. A series of confirmatory factor analyses was then performed to further test dimensionality (Fornell and Larker 1981). Next, the relationship of the control and criterion variables with both one and two factor models of the two scale versions was examined to assess their nomological, convergent and predictive validity. These findings are next discussed in more detail.

Findings

Examination of the principal components factor analyses for both scale versions suggested that the construct was not unidimensional. In the case of the literal scale version, two factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 were identified. One represented the core items in the CETSCALE. The second included the items relating to the purchase of foreign products when domestic products or brands were not available. A similar structure was observed for the modified scale version. These analyses supported the proposition that the consumer ethnocentrism construct was more complex in the Netherlands than had originally been found in the U.S.

Confirmatory factor analyses for both scale versions further supported these findings (Table 3). For all scale versions, the two-dimensional model provided a better fit for the data than the single-factor model. Using a χ2 difference test we obtained a χ2diff = 13.7, dfdiff = 1, p<.01 for the literal 10 item scale version, a χ2diff = 31.8, dfdiff = 1, p < .01 for the literal 11 item version and a χ2diff = 13.2, dfdiff = 1, p<.01 for the modified 11 item version. In addition, examination of the correlations between the two dimensions further confirmed lack of unidimensionality. In the case of the 11-item modified version, the correlation was .22. Even for the 10-item version the correlation was .70, (0.09), less than the .90 or above which might be expected for a one-dimensional model. The fit of the two-dimensional model was also significantly improved for all three versions, by allowing for (error) correlation of two or more items in each of the dimensions (resulting in most fit measures meeting the criterion >.90). As there was, however, no theoretical support for these correlations and because it hindered a straightforward comparison between the different models, these were not included in the final model.

Next, the relation of the factors in the one and two-dimensional models to the criterion variables and the two control measures was examined (Table 4). This showed a strong correlation between the two criterion variables, attitudes towards domestic products and reluctance to buy foreign (German) products, both for the single-factor model and the first factor in the two-dimensional model (i.e. the core CETSCALE items). This suggests that the Dutch have a negative attitude towards German products and perceive them as “foreign”. This is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that Germany is the Netherlands’s main trading partner, and that Nijmegen is close to the German border. The correlation between the criterion variables and the second factor was positive, though not significant. This suggests that reliance on “core” items of a scale may provide a more coherent and stronger measure in cross-national research. Inclusion of ancillary items, which exhibit context-specific variation, may attenuate the strength of observed relationships.

A similar patterning of results was observed for one of the control variables, patriotism. This was significantly correlated with the single-factor model and the first factor of the two-dimensional model. However, patriotism was not correlated with the second factor providing further support that the “availability” factor is a distinct construct. The second control construct, interest in foreign travel, showed an inverse patterning. It was not correlated with the core CETSCALE items, but was associated with the “availability” factor. This suggests, somewhat interestingly, that while negative attitudes towards the purchase of foreign products are associated with patriotism, they are not necessarily strongly associated with lack of interest in foreign travel. On the other hand, more nuanced attitudes towards the purchase of foreign products appear to be associated with love of foreign travel and exposure to foreign countries.

Discussion

The results provide a number of insights into the problems associated with use of “borrowed” scales in cross-national or cross-cultural research.

Contextual salience: In the first place, the findings suggest that considerable caution should be exercised when using scales developed in one country or cultural context in other environments. This is particularly important where the construct measured is likely to be culturally embedded, or related to macroeconomic country characteristics, as in the case of the CETSCALE. Consumer ethnocentrism was originally studied in the U.S. in the context of patriotism and politico-economic conservatism, and relates to a belief in the superiority of one’s own group (country).

This construct appears to be salient and manifested in a similar way in large industrialized countries such as France, West Germany, and Japan, where similar feelings of patriotism, national superiority, and a belief that domestic products are superior and of better quality have been identified (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991). However, such feelings are less salient in small market economies with open borders and a high proportion of foreign trade. This is particularly likely to be the case where there are no or few domestic brands in many product categories, as in the Netherlands. Consequently, attitudes towards the purchase of foreign products are more nuanced. In particular, a distinction is made between the appropriateness of purchasing foreign goods in general, and purchasing foreign goods when no domestic (Dutch) products are available.

Construct non-equivalence: The study also suggests the importance of examining non- equivalence where the research context or setting differs in certain critical aspects from the initial study setting. Use of exploratory factor analysis provides an initial indication of non-equivalence. In all tests of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands, the two-factor model provided a better fit, and showed stronger relationships with criterion and control variables than the single-factor model. The core dimension reflects the central tenet of consumer ethnocentrism, namely the appropriateness or morality of purchasing foreign products. The second dimension reflects a more nuanced attitude toward purchase of foreign products, and a belief that foreign products should be purchased only when they are not available in the Netherlands. This suggests that a second dimension relating to non-availability of domestic alternatives may exist in small countries.

Convergent and divergent validity: The low correlation of both criterion and control variables with the second factor further confirm the existence of a distinct element relating to non-availability of domestic products. The findings also suggest that core consumer ethnocentric attitudes are closely related to patriotism and may be indicative of a conservative personality. Interestingly, the absence of a negative correlation with interest in foreign travel suggests that such attitudes are not necessarily associated with lack of exposure to, or interest in, other countries. This latter finding may, however, be specific to the Netherlands, where the relatively small size of the country and proximity to other countries result in frequent interaction with and travel to neighboring countries. Also travel is positively associated with the second factor relating to non-availability of domestic alternatives.

The study is, however, limited to studying differences in the construct in a single small country. Further research is clearly needed, particularly with regard to other small countries similar to the Netherlands, as for example, Denmark, which has a high degree of interaction with other countries, and also a high percentage of foreign or imported products. This may help to improve understanding of attitudes to purchasing products of different national origins in different contexts in an era of increasing consumer and market globalization.

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

These findings suggest a number of directions for further research in conducting cross-national studies, and more specifically in using scales developed in one country or context in other countries or contexts.

Research context. In the first place, the study illustrates the importance of carefully considering the impact of macroeconomic or other relevant characteristics of countries on the operationalization of the constructs studied. Many constructs and measures of these have been developed in large market economies such as the US. Hence it is important to consider how far characteristics of that context, for example, feelings of nationalism and patriotism, availability of domestic product alternatives influence or shape the construct, and how it is expressed. The impact of differences in these characteristics needs to be considered in designing research and developing an appropriate conceptual framework for studying the construct in other research settings (Hong and Chin, 2001).

Examination of construct equivalence. Secondly, the findings clearly underscore the need to consider construct equivalence in the early stage of the research design, and in the formulation of research questions and hypotheses as well as in the conceptual framework, which underlies these. This is particularly important where the construct has first been identified and a related scale or other measurement instrument developed in a single or specific socio-economic context. In this case, the researcher needs to determine first whether the same construct is equally salient and is expressed in the same terms in other countries and cultural contexts.

Where initial examination based, for example, on expert opinion suggests that the construct may not be equivalent, it may be desirable to conduct a preliminary phase of research to investigate this. This might, for example, take the form of focus group or in-depth interviews relating to the construct. The findings would provide insights into the construct and how it might be expressed in different contexts. This might suggest adaptation of the measurement instrument, as for example, broadening the domain specification and adding items to reflect country or context-specific items (see Figure 1). This will, however, lengthen the questionnaire, and is most likely to be appropriate where the main focus of a study is to examine the construct in different situational or contextual conditions.

Use of shortened scales. Third and relatedly, the study suggests that it may be desirable in cross-cultural studies to use shortened versions of scales that reflect core items of a construct. Often in developing scales in a purely domestic context, researchers may include domains or aspects of a construct, which are non-central, ancillary or context-specific. In a cross-cultural context, this may attenuate the predictive strength of the measurement instrument. Use of shortened scales has been found in other contexts to improve predictive ability, and has the added advantage of shortening the questionnaire (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1995).

Translation equivalence. The final issue relates to the translation of items making up an attitudinal scale or of attitudinal constructs. In the social sciences (Brislin 1980, van de Vijver and Leung 1997), the procedure advocated is that of back-translation. Items are translated into the target language by bilinguals who are native speakers of that language and back-translated by natives of the base language. This helps to provide a faithful or literal translation and eliminate translation errors or mistakes. However, it is unlikely to provide an effective means for translating colloquial items or expressive items (Hambleton 1993, 1994). In some cases, a term may be used for which there is no direct equivalent in another language, for example philotimo in Greek or “ face” in Chinese. Equally, colloquial terms need to be translated into a colloquial equivalent. Consequently, rather than using direct or back translation, it is preferable to use parallel translation (Craig and Douglas 2000). A committee of bilinguals co-operate on translating and adapting an instrument. This has the advantage of using people of different backgrounds and perspectives in a co-operative effort to improve the quality of translation and assess its accuracy. Often this approach is helpful in “decentring” the research instrument – and developing one which is better adapted to a specific culture (Werner and Campbell 1970).

CONCLUSIONS

In brief, use of “borrowed” scales is fraught with danger, particularly where the scale is used in a country or context that differs substantially in certain key respects from that in which the scale was originally developed. In some cases the dangers of this practice are evident, for example, in using scales of consumer satisfaction developed in industrialized nations in emerging market countries or formerly planned economies. In other cases, the attendant pitfalls may be less evident, as for example, those examined here, associated with to the size of an economy or society and its openness to other cultural influences and ideas.

An important first step in order to avoid a “pseudo-etic” or imposed perspective in conducting cross-national research is to assess construct equivalence in other countries and contexts. This should then lead to a “decentred” research approach, removing the influence of a dominant country or cultural perspective. Preliminary investigation of construct equivalence is essential to determine whether instruments should be modified, or alternatively, an emic or culture-specific instrument developed. While time-consuming and laborious, such steps are nonetheless essential to avoid inaccurate or inadequate measurement and erroneous or misleading conclusions.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., and Sanford, R. Nevitt (1950), The Authoritarian Personality, Harper & Row, New York.

Balabanis, George, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Rene Dentiste Mueller and T.C. Melewar (2001), “The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies,”Journal of International Business Studies. Vol.32, pp.157-175.

Berry, J. W. (1969), ” On Cross-Cultural Comparability,” International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.119-128.

Berry, J. W. (1989), ”Imposed Etics-Emics-Derived Etics: The Operationalization of a Compelling Idea,” International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp.721-735.

Brislin, Richard (1980), Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Materials, in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry, eds., Allyn and Bacon, Boston., Vol. 1, pp. 389-444.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966), Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago.

Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1995), ” Construct Validity in Psychological Tests,” Psychological Bulletin No.52, pp. 281-302.

Craig, C.Samuel and Susan P. Douglas, International Marketing Research, second edition, John Wiley &Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.

Durvasula, Srinivas, Andrews, J. Craig, Lysonski, Steven, and Netemeyer, Richard (1993), ”Assessing the Cross-National Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A Model of Attitude toward Advertising in General,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.19, March, pp. 626-636.

“Dutch Doors to the New Europe”(1998), Wall Street Journal, 27 April.

Embretson, S. E. (1983),”Construct Validity: Construct Representation Versus Nomothetic Span.,” Psychological Bulletin No. 93, pp. 179-197.

Fornell, Claes and Larker, David F. (1981), ”Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research Vol.18, February, pp.39-50.

Good, L. K. and Huddleston, P. (1995),”Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian Consumers: Are Feelings and Intentions Related?”, International Marketing Review Vol.12, No.5, pp. 35-48.

Hambleton, R. K. (1993), “Translating Achievement Tests for Use in Cross-National Studies”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 9, pp.57-68.

Hambleton, R. K. (1994), “Guidelines for Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests: A Progress Report”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 10, pp. 229-244.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1996), Filial Piety and its Psychological Consequences, in Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Michael H. Bond, ed., Oxford University Press, Hong Kong.

Hong Ying-yi and Chi-yeu Chiu (2001), “Toward a Paradigm Shift: From Cross-Cultural Differences in Social Cognition to Social-Cognitive Mediation of Cultural Differences”, Social Cognition, Vol.19, No. 3, pp.181-196.

Jaworski, Bernard J. and Kohli, Ajay K. (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 17, p.53.

Klein, Jill G., Ettenson, Richard, and Morris, Marlene D. (1998), “The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, January, pp. 89-100.

Labouvie, Erick and Ruetsch, Charles (1995), “Testing for Equivalence of Measurement Scales: Simple Structure and Metric Invariance Reconsidered”, Multivariate Behavioral Research Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Lee, Chol and Green, Robert T. (1991), “Cross-Cultural Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model”, Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 289-305.

Leung, Kwok and Zhang, J. (1996), “Systemic Considerations: Factors Facilitating and Impeding the Development of Psychology in Developing Countries”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30, pp.693-706.

LeVine, R. and Campbell, D. T. (1972), Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior, Wiley & Sons, New York.

Lonner, Walter J. and Adamopoulos, John (1997), “Culture as Antecedent to Behavior”, Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, John W. Berry, Ype H. Poortinga and Janak Pandey, Allyn and Bacon, Edition 2, Vol. 1, Boston, pp. 43-83.

. Markus, Hazel and Kitayama, Shinobu (1991), “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation”, Psychological Review Vol. 98, No. 2 pp. 224-253.

Mintu, Alma T., Calantone, Roger J. and Gassenheimer, Jule B. (1994), “Towards Improving Cross-Cultural Research: Extending Churchill’s Research Paradigm”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.5-23.

Mullen, Michael R. (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 573-596.

Netemeyer, Richard, Durvasula, Srinivas, and Lichtenstein, Donald R. (1991), “A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 320-327.

Parameswaran, Ravi and Yaprak, Attila (1987), “A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18, Spring, pp. 35-49.

Poortinga, Ype H. (1989), “Equivalence of Cross-Cultural Data: An Overview of Basic Issues”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 737-756.

Scheepers, Peer, Felling, Albert, and Peters, Jan (1989), “Ethnocentrism in the Netherlands – A Typological Analysis”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 9-308.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, M. Zanna, ed., Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Sears, Robert N. (1961), “Transcultural Variables and Conceptual Equivalence”, Studying Personality Cross-culturally, Bert Kaplan, ed., Row, Peleston & Co., Evanston, IL. pp. 445-455.

Serpell, R. (1961), The Significance of Schooling: Life-Journeys in an African Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Sharma, Subhash, Shimp, Terence A., and Shin, Jeongshin (1995), ”Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Shimp, Terence A. and Sharma, Subhash (1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construct Validation of the CETSCALE” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 280-289.

Singh, Jagdip (1995), “Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 597-620.

Sojka, Jane and Tansuhaj, Patriya: Cross-Cultural Consumer Research (1995), “A Twenty-Year Review”, Advances in Consumer Research, Frank Kardes and Mita Sujan, eds., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT., Vol. 22, pp. 461-475.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Baumgartner, Hans (1998), “Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, June, pp. 78-90.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Baumgartner, Hans (1995), “Development and Cross-Cultural Validation of a Short Form of CSI as a Measure of Optimal Stimulation Level”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, July, pp. 97-104.

van de Vijver, Fons and Leung, Kwok (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

van Raaij, W. F. (1978), “Cross-Cultural Research Methodology as a Case of Construct Validity”, Advances in Consumer Research, H. K. Hunt, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI., Vol. 5, pp. 693-701.

Werner, Oscar and Campbell, Donald T. (1970), “Translating, Working Through Interpreters, and the Problem of Decentering”, Handbook of Cultural Anthropology, Raoul Naroll and Ronald Cohen, eds., American Museum of Natural History, New York., pp. 398-419.

World Bank (2000), World Development Indicators, The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table 1

THE 10 ITEM VERSION OF THE CETSCALE

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.Only those products that are unavailable in the U.S. should be imported.

American products, first, last and foremost.

Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American.

It is not right to purchase foreign products.

A real American should always buy American-made products.

We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries get rich off us.

Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and causes unemployment.

It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support American products.

We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our country.

American consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Americans out of work.

Table 2

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF CETSCALE (First Study)

(Factor Loadings After Varimax Rotation)

ItemFactor 1

Factor 2

Eigen Value

% of Var. Explained

5

4

6

10

7

8

2

3

.83

.79

.79

.77

.76

.59

.57

.55

.17

.18

.20

.05

.05

.26

.39

.26

Factor 1

Factor 2

4.74

1.10

47.5

11.1

1

9

.01

.28

.88

.67

Table 3

RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES FOR THREE VERSIONS OF

THE CETSCALE – ONE AND TWO DIMENSIONAL MODELS

Model

X2

df

GFIAGFICFIRMSEACorrel. of

2 Dimensions

Literal version (10 items)

One dimension

Two dimensions

94.94

81.17

35

34

0.87

0.89

0.79

0.89

0.86

0.89

0.117

0.105

0.70 (0.09)

Literal version (11 items)

One dimension

Two dimensions

119.75

87.97

44

43

0.85

0.89

0.78

0.83

0.84

0.89

0.117

0.091

0.65 (0.08)

Modified version (11 items)

One dimension

Two dimensions

110.27

79.09

44

43

0.86

0.90

0.79

0.84

0.73

0.85

0.109

0.082

0.22 (0.13)

Table 4

CORRELATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED VERSION OF THE CETSCALE

AND THE CRITERION AND CONTROL VARIABLES

Modified Version (11 items)

One Dimensional

Model

Two Dimensional

Model

Factor 1:

Core Items

Factor 2:

Domestic Availability

Criterion variables

Product judgment

Reluctance to buy

0.66 (0.00)

0.44 (0.00)

0.71 (0.00)

0.44 (0.00)

0.10 (0.27)

0.15 (0.10)

Control variables

Patriotism

Travel

0.25 (0.00)

-0.06 (0.49)

0.30 (0.00)

-0.17 (0.06)

-0.03 (0.76)

0.22 (0.01)

Appendix A

FINAL TRANSLATION CETSCALE:

Original Scale

Modified Scale

Original CETSCALE

Dutch Translation

Back Translation

Dutch Translation

Back Translation

#1: Only those products that are unavailable in the U.S. should be imported

Alleen die producten, die in Nederland niet verkrijgbaar zijn, zouden mogen worden geimporteerd

Only those products, that in The Netherlands are not available, should be (allowed) to be imported

Vooral produkten die in eigen land niet worden gemaakt moet men importeren

Primarily products that are not manufactured in one’s own country should be imported

#2: American products first, last and foremost

Nederlandse produkten altijd de beste

Dutch products, always (the) best

Er gaat doorgaans niets boven produkten uit eigen land

In general, there is nothing like (beats) products from your own country

#3: Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American

Het aanschaffen van in het buitenland vervaardigde produkten is

onnederlands

The purchasing of foreign-made products is un-Dutch

Alleen buitenlandse produkten kopen is onnederlands

Exclusively/Only buying foreign products is un-Dutch

Het is typische Nederlands om geimporteerde goederen te kopen

It is typically Dutch to purchase imported goods

#4: It is not right to purchase foreign products (because it puts Americans out of work)

Het is niet goed om buitenlandse producten aan te scaffen (omdat Nederlanders hierdoor hun baan verliezen)

It is not good to purchase foreign products (because Dutchmen because of it lost their jobs)

Je moet zo min mogelijik buitenlandse producten kopen omdat dat beter is voor de Nederlandse werkgelegenheid

You should buy as few foreign products as possible because that is better for Dutch employment

#5: A real American should always buy American-made products

Een echte Nederlander zou altijd in Nederland gemaakte produkten moeten kopen

A real Dutchman should always buy in The Netherlands made products

Een Nederlander dient vooral producten uit eigen land te kopen

A Dutchman should primarily buy products from his own country

#6: We should not buy foreign products because this hurts American business and causes unemployment

We zouden in Nederland gemaakte producten moeten kopen, in plaats van andere landen ten koste van ons rijk te laten worden

We should buy in The Netherlands made products, instead let other countries at our expense get rich

We moeten vooral proberen producten uit eigen land te kopen, in plaats van andere landen rijker te maken

We should really try to purchase products from our own country instead of making other countries rich

#7: Americans should not buy foreign products because this hurts American business and causes unemployment

Nederlanders zouden geen buitenlandse producten moeten kopen omdat dit het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven schaadt en werkeloosheid veroorzaakt

Dutchmen should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Dutch business and causes unemployment

Het kopen van buitenlandse produkten kan het Nederlandse zakenleven benadelen en werkeloosheid veroorzaken

Purchasing foreign products can hurt Dutch business and cause unemployment

#8: It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support American products

Al kost het mij uiteindelijik meer, toch wil ik graag het Nederlandse produkt ondersteunen

It may eventually cost me more, still I like to support Dutch business and causes unemployment

Al kost het mij uiteindelijik meer, toch blijif ik bepaalde produkten uit eigen land ondersteunen

Even though it may cost me in the long run, I will still support certain products from my own country

#9: We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country

Wij zouden allen producten uit het buitenland moeten kopen die we in ons eigen land niet kunnen krijgen

We should only buy products from foreign countries that we in our own country can not get/obtain

We moeten vooral producten uit het buitenland kopen die in eigen land niet worden gemaakt

We should primarily buy from other countries products not manufactured in our own country

#10: American consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Americans out of work

Nederlandse consumenten die producten kopen die in andere landen zijn gemaakt, zijn verantwoordelijk voor het werkeloos maken van mede-Nederlanders

Dutch consumers who buy products that are made in other countries, are responsible for making unemployed (without work) fellow Dutchmen

Nederlandse consumenten die alleen producten uit andere landen kopen dragen bij aan de werkeloosheid in Nederland

Dutch consumers who only buy products from other countries contribute to unemployment in The Netherlands

NOTES TO APPENDIX A: TRANSLATING THE CETSCALE

In translating the CETSCALE, a number of issues arise relating both to the underlying construct, and also the way in which that is expressed. In the first place, a number of the items are expressed in relatively colloquial terms, and hence pose difficulties in translation. Secondly, some of the items make certain assumptions, which may not hold or be relevant in all countries and contexts. Thirdly, some items use terminology which are difficult to translate or may cause ambiguities.

Colloquialisms: Some items in the CETSCALE pose particular problems in translation due to their colloquial nature. For example:

“American products, first, last and foremost”

“A real American should always buy American-made products”

“Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American.”

In the first item, the phrase “first, last and foremost” is difficult to translate in some languages, such as Dutch. Similarly, in the second and third items, the terms “a real American” and “un-American” do not always translate directly.

Assumptions: Somewhat more subtle and complex problems arise translating other items which make certain implicit assumptions such as:

“We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries get rich off us.”

“Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and causes unemployment.”

The first item assumes that value is added at the manufacturing stage, and that manufacturers in other countries get the major proportion of value-added. This may not necessarily be the case for imports from emerging market countries where distributor or import margins account for most of the value-added. Similarly, in the second item, there is an assumption that foreign products compete directly with American products, although they may tap different market segments, i.e. price-sensitive segments, or luxury-oriented consumers.

Terminology: Terminology may also pose problems. For example, in the phrase

“It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support American products” and

“It is not right to purchase foreign products,”

Use of the term “support” implicitly suggests a subsidy which is not always easy to translate. Equally, in some languages, translations of the term “foreign” can have negative connotations. In some product categories, however, e.g. expensive perfume and clothes, “foreigners” can have positive connotations. Also, the term “foreign” is somewhat ambiguous and can refer to an imported product, or one that is manufactured domestically but sold under a foreign brand name.

These issues suggest that considerable care needs to be exercised in translating attitudinal scales in order to ensure that the same nuances are replicated. In particular, attention needs to be applied to the strength or valence of the statement when translated, as a result of differences in the socio-economic or linguistic context.

Appendix B

MEANS AND RELIABILITY OF THE CRITERION AND CONTROL VARIABLES

Literal Version

Modified Version

Mean

(st. dev.)

Reliability

(Cronbach α)

Mean

(st. dev.)

Reliability

(Cronbach α)

Control Variables

Travel

I love to travel and visit other countries

I love to go abroad

I go abroad several times a year

I like to visit exotic places during my vacation

Patriotism

It is important to sustain our national anthem

On every national holiday we should raise the flag

Serving the mother land is an “honorable” thing

A real Dutchman supports Dutch sportsmen when they compete in international games

4.44 (1.02)

4.55 (0.93)

3.47 (1.40)

3.58 (1.41)

3.79 (1.40)

3.22 (1.40)

3.11 (1.29)

3.38 (1.45)

0.74

0.79

4.35 (1.07)

4.47 (1.01)

3.15 (1.51)

3.71 (1.42)

3.86 (1.37)

3.26 (1.56)

3.20 (1.34)

3.51 (1.42)

0.75

0.71

Criterion Variables

Attitude toward domestic products

When possible I always buy Dutch brands

The workmanship of Dutch products is superior to that of foreign products

I buy Dutch made products as much as possible

I think Dutch products are of a better quality than foreign products

Reluctance to buy German products

I would feel guilty buying a German product

I would never buy a German product

Whenever possible I avoid buying German products

I do not like the idea of owning a product that was made in Germany

When two products are of similar quality but one is a Dutch and the other a German brand I would gladly pay 10% more for the Dutch brand

2.29 (1.35)

2.35 (1.19)

2.45 (1.29)

2.47 (1.14)

1.37 (0.77)

1.46 (0.88)

1.69 (1.02)

1.48 (0.89)

1.95 (1.18)

0.76

0.75

2.25 (1.32)

2.51 (1.28)

2.56 (1.16)

2.62 (1.07)

1.40 (0.84)

1.83 (1.18)

1.78 (1.04)

1.50 (0.90)

2.28 (1.33)

0.72

0.77

Appendix C

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS:(all numbers are in percentages)

Age (in years)

Gender

Education

18-24 26.9

Male 54.3

High School 2.3

25-34 27.4

Female 45.7

Some college 20.6

35-44 19.6

College degree 35.6

45-54 17.8

Graduate school 41.5

55+ 8.3

Country A

Figure 1

Assessing Construct Equivalence in Cross-National Research

Assess criterion and predictive validity

Assess salience in Country B based on:

•Literature review of similar/related constructs/concepts

• Discussion with local researchers (local experts)

• Conduct evaluative research, i.e.: focus groups, in-depth interviews where necessary

Literal �Translation �of Scale

Develop Modified�Version of Scale/�Construct�- broaden domain� specification�- add items

Compare Contextual Similarity

Construct/Scale Developed in Country A

Examine nomological validity of literal and modified versions

Examine internal structure via principal components and/or confirmatory factor analysis

Compare

Country B

� All fit measures increase and meet the > 0.90 criterion if some errors are allowed to correlate within a dimension. The significant difference between the single and two-factor solution remains.

30