Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorLomazzi, Verade
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-22T12:57:15Z
dc.date.available2022-02-22T12:57:15Z
dc.date.issued2021de
dc.identifier.issn2673-3145de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/77558
dc.description.abstractAlthough measurement invariance is widely considered a precondition for meaningful cross-sectional comparisons, substantive studies have often neglected evaluating this assumption, thereby risking drawing conclusions and making theoretical generalizations based on misleading results. This study offers a theoretical overview of the key issues concerning the measurement and the comparison of socio-political values and aims to answer the questions of what must be evaluated, why, when, and how to assess measurement equivalence. This paper discusses the implications of formative and reflective approaches to the measurement of socio-political values and introduces challenges in their comparison across different countries. From this perspective, exact and approximate approaches to equivalence are described as well as their empirical translation in statistical techniques, such as the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and the frequentist alignment method. To illustrate the application of these methods, the study investigates the construct of solidarity as measured by European Values Study (EVS) and using data collected in 34 countries in the last wave of the EVS (2017–2020). The concept is captured through a battery of nine items reflecting three dimensions of solidarity: social, local, and global. Two measurement models are hypothesized: a first-order factor model, in which the three independent dimensions of solidarity are correlated, and a second-order factor model, in which solidarity is conceived according to a hierarchical principle, and the construct of solidarity is reflected in the three sub-factors. In testing the equivalence of the first-order factor model, the results of the MGCFA indicated that metric invariance was achieved. The alignment method supported approximate equivalence only when the model was reduced to two factors, excluding global solidarity. The second-order factor model fit the data of only seven countries, in which this model could be used to study solidarity as a second-order concept. However, the comparison across countries resulted not appropriate at any level of invariance. Finally, the implications of these results for further substantive research are discussed.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcSozialwissenschaften, Soziologiede
dc.subject.ddcSocial sciences, sociology, anthropologyen
dc.subject.ddcPolitikwissenschaftde
dc.subject.ddcPolitical scienceen
dc.subject.othermeasurement equivalence, alignment, MGCFA, approximate equivalence; European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.13560de
dc.titleCan We Compare Solidarity Across Europe? What, Why, When, and How to Assess Exact and Approximate Equivalence of First- and Second-Order Factor Modelsde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Political Science
dc.source.volume3de
dc.publisher.countryDEUde
dc.subject.classozErhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaftende
dc.subject.classozMethods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methodsen
dc.subject.classozpolitische Willensbildung, politische Soziologie, politische Kulturde
dc.subject.classozPolitical Process, Elections, Political Sociology, Political Cultureen
dc.subject.thesozMessungde
dc.subject.thesozmeasurementen
dc.subject.thesozVergleichde
dc.subject.thesozcomparisonen
dc.subject.thesozvergleichende Forschungde
dc.subject.thesozcomparative researchen
dc.subject.thesozstatistische Methodede
dc.subject.thesozstatistical methoden
dc.subject.thesozFaktorenanalysede
dc.subject.thesozfactor analysisen
dc.subject.thesozSolidaritätde
dc.subject.thesozsolidarityen
dc.subject.thesozEVSde
dc.subject.thesozEVSen
dc.subject.thesozEuropade
dc.subject.thesozEuropeen
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-77558-1
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
ssoar.contributor.institutionGESISde
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10036930
internal.identifier.thesoz10047774
internal.identifier.thesoz10068092
internal.identifier.thesoz10052184
internal.identifier.thesoz10035494
internal.identifier.thesoz10058003
internal.identifier.thesoz10079761
internal.identifier.thesoz10042879
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo1-21de
internal.identifier.classoz10105
internal.identifier.classoz10504
internal.identifier.journal1910
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc300
internal.identifier.ddc320
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.641698de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
dc.description.miscFDBde
dc.subject.classhort10100de
dc.subject.classhort10500de
ssoar.wgl.collectiontruede
internal.pdf.wellformedtrue
internal.pdf.encryptedfalse


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record