MIsgivings about measurement invariance

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the conventional insistence on establishing measurement invariance (MI) in cross-cultural psychology. We argue that complex and seemingly arbitrary benchmarks for assessing MI can be unrealistic and effectively prohibit meaningful research. The widespread use of various MI criteria creates unnecessary and often unattainable hurdles for cross-cultural researchers who have made the effort to collect data in multiple cultural contexts. Additionally, the prohibitionist tone of discussions surrounding MI is unhelpful, unscientific, and discouraging. We argue that emerging findings that cultural differences might not be as widespread or profound as once assumed imply that significant cross-cultural differences in measurement should not be the default assumption. Additionally, we advocate a shift towards external validity as a more useful metric of measurement quality. Our overall message is that researchers who go to the considerable trouble of gathering data in more than one country should not be disadvantaged compared to researchers who avoid cross-cultural complications by gathering data only at their home campus.