Cải thiện các phép đo bằng cách tận dụng sự hợp tác hạ tầng khảo sát: những hiểu biết từ thang đo thái độ về vai trò giới trong nghiên cứu giá trị châu Âu 2017

Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B.: Multiple-Group Factor Analysis Alignment. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 21, 495–508 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210 Behr, D.: Assessing the use of back translation: the shortcomings of back translation as a quality testing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 20, 573–584 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1252188 Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.: Testing the Validity of Gender Ideology Items by Implementing Probing Questions in Web Surveys. Field Methods. 25, 124–141 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12462525 Blasius, J., Thiessen, V.: Assessing Data Quality and Construct Comparabilityin Cross-National Surveys. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 22, 229–242 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci054 Braun, M.: Gender roles. In: Van Deth, J.W. (ed.) Comparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence, pp. 111–134. Routledge, London (1998) Braun, M.: Using Egalitarian Items to Measure Men’s and Women’s Family Roles. Sex Roles. 59, 644–656 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9468-5 Braun, M.: The role of cultural contexts in item interpretation: the example of gender roles. In: Haller, M., Jowell, R., Smith, T.W. (eds.) The International Social Survey Programme, 1984–2009: charting the globe, pp. 395–408. Routledge, London/New York (2009) Brown, T.A.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press, New York (2015) Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., Muthén, B.: Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull. 105, 456–466 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 Chen, F.F.: Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504 (2007) Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., Schwartz, S.H.: Comparing results of an exact vs. an approximate (Bayesian) measurement invariance test: a cross-country illustration with a scale to measure 19 human values. Front. Psychol. 5, 982 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00982 Constantin, A., Voicu, M.: Attitudes Towards Gender Roles in Cross-Cultural Surveys: Content Validity and Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance. Soc. Indic. Res. 123, 733–751 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0758-8 Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J.: Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40, 50–75 (2014) Davidov, E., Muthen, B., Schmidt, P.: Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Studies: Challenging Traditional Approaches and Evaluating New Ones. Sociol. Methods Res. 47, 631–636 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118789708 Davis, S.N., Greenstein, T.N.: Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35, 87–105 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920 Dorer, B.: Round 6 Translation Guidelines. European Social Survey, GESIS, Mannheim (2012) Emery, T.: The Sustainability of Social Science Survey Infrastructures. SocArXiv (2019) EVS: European Values Study (EVS): 2017: Methodological Guidelines. GESIS Pap. (2020a). https://doi.org/10.21241/SSOAR.70110 EVS: European Values Study: 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, (2020b)https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13560 EVS: European Values Study (EVS): Guide to the Mixed-mode Approach and Matrix Design. European Values Study (EVS), Köln (2017) (2020c) Grunow, D., Begall, K., Buchler, S.: Gender Ideologies in Europe: A Multidimensional Framework. J. Marriage Fam. 80, 42–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12453 Harkness, J.A.: Improving the comparability of translations. In: Jowell, R., Roberts, C., Fitzgerald, R., Eva, G. (eds.) Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey, pp. 73–93. Sage, Los Angeles (2007) Hatcher, L., O’Rourke, N.: A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS Institute (2013) Horn, J.L., Mcardle, J.J.: A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exp. Aging Res. 18, 117–144 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916 Hox, J.J., De Leeuw, E.D., Zijlmans, E.A.O.: Measurement equivalence in mixed mode surveys. Quant. Psychol. Meas. 6, 87 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00087 Jelen, T.G.: The effects of gender role stereotypes on political attitudes. Soc. Sci. J. 25, 353–365 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(88)90036-5 Klausch, T., Hox, J.J., Schouten, B.: Measurement Effects of Survey Mode on the Equivalence of Attitudinal Rating Scale Questions. Sociol. Methods Res. 42, 227–263 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500480 Knight, C.R., Brinton, M.C.: One Egalitarianism or Several? Two Decades of Gender-Role Attitude Change in Europe. Am. J. Sociol. 5, 1485–1532 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1086/689814 Kohler, U.: Survey Research Methods during the COVID-19 Crisis. Surv. Res. Methods. 14, 93–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7769 Little, T.D., Slegers, D.W., Card, N.A.: A Non-arbitrary Method of Identifying and Scaling Latent Variables in SEM and MACS Models. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 13, 59–72 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3 Lomazzi, V.: Testing the Goodness of the EVS Gender Role Attitudes Scale. Bull. Sociol. Methodol. Méthodologie Sociol. 135, 90–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106317710859 Lomazzi, V.: Using alignment optimization to test the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in 59 countries. Methods Data Anal. J. Quant. Methods Surv. Methodol. Mda. 12, 77–103 (2018). https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2017.0x Luijkx, R., Jónsdóttir, G.A., Gummer, T., Ernst Stähli, M., Frederiksen, M., Ketola, K., Reeskens, T., Brislinger, E., Christmann, P., Gunnarsson, S., Hjaltason, ÁB., Joye, D., Lomazzi, V., Maineri, A.M., Milbert, P., Ochsner, M., Pollien, A., Sapin, M., Solanes, I., Verhoeven, S., Wolf, C.: The European Values Study 2017: On the Way to the Future Using Mixed-Modes. Eur. Sociol. Rev. jcaa049 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa049 Marsh, H.W., Guo, J., Parker, P.D., Nagengast, B., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., Dicke, T.: What to do When Scalar Invariance Fails: The Extended Alignment Method for Multi-Group Factor Analysis Comparison of Latent Means Across Many Groups. Psychol. Methods. 23, 524–545 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000113 Martens, M.: Uploaded and modularized TMT. Deliverable 3.12 of the SERISS project funded under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme GA No: 654221 (2017). Available at: www.seriss.eu/resources/deliverables Matsunaga, M.: How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3, 97 (2010). https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854 Meitinger, K.: Necessary but InsufficientWhy Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary Tool. Public Opin. Q. 81, 447–472 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx009 Moors, G.: Facts and Artefacts in the Comparison of Attitudes Among Ethnic Minorities. A Multigroup Latent Class Structure Model with Adjustment for Response Style Behavior. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 20, 303–320 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jch026 Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P.: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study to Assess The Appropriateness of Traditional and Newer Approaches to Test for Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 26, 724–744 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1561293 Rose, N., Wagner, W., Mayer, A., Nagengast, B.: Model-Based Manifest and Latent Composite Scores in Structural Equation Models. Collabra Psychol. 5, 9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.143 Saris, W.E., Satorra, A., Sörbom, D.: The Detection and Correction of Specification Errors in Structural Equation Models. Sociol. Methodol. 17, 105–129 (1987). https://doi.org/10.2307/271030 Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Müller, H.: Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 8, 23–74 (2003) van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., Muthen, B.: Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Front. Psychol. 4, 770 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770 Seddig, D., Lomazzi, V.: Using cultural and structural indicators to explain measurement noninvariance in gender role attitudes with multilevel structural equation modeling. Soc. Sci. Res. 84, 102328 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102328 Steenkamp, J.E.M., Baumgartner, H.: Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research. J. Consum. Res. 25, 78–107 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/209528 Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K.A.: Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychol. Bull. 103, 299 (1988) van Vlimmeren, E., Moors, G.B.D., Gelissen, J.P.T.M.: Clusters of cultures: diversity in meaning of family value and gender role items across, Europe. Qual. Quant. 1–24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0422-2 Voicu, M., Tufiş, P.A.: Trends in gender beliefs in Romania: 1993–2008. Curr. Sociol. 60, 61–80 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111426648 Walter, J.G.: The adequacy of measures of gender roles attitudes: a review of current measures in omnibus surveys. Qual. Quant. 52, 829–848 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0491-x West, S.G., Taylor, A.B., Wu, W.: Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle, R.H. (ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling, pp. 209–231. Guilford Publications, New York (2012) Wilcox, C., Jelen, T.G.: The Effects of Employment and Religion on Women’s Feminist Attitudes. Int. J. Psychol. Relig. 1, 161–171 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0103_3