He,J.Van De Vijver,Fons J.r.Fetvadjiev,Velichko H.De Carmen Dominguez Espinosa,AlejandraAdams,B.G.Alonso-arbiol,ItziarAydinli-karakulak,ArzuBuzea,CarmenDimitrova,RadosvetaFortin,AlvaroHapunda,GivenMa,SangSargautyte,RutaSim,SamanthaSchachner,Maja K.Suryani,AngelaZeinoun,PiaZhang,RuiMõttus,René2025-02-012025-02-012017He, J, Van De Vijver, F J R, Fetvadjiev, V H, De Carmen Dominguez Espinosa, A, Adams, B G, Alonso-arbiol, I, Aydinli-karakulak, A, Buzea, C, Dimitrova, R, Fortin, A, Hapunda, G, Ma, S, Sargautyte, R, Sim, S, Schachner, M K, Suryani, A, Zeinoun, P, Zhang, R & Mõttus, R (ed.) 2017, 'On enhancing the cross-cultural comparability of Likert-Scale Personality and Value Measures : A comparison of common procedures', European Journal of Personality, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 642-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.21320890-2070crossref: 10.1002/per.213210.1002/per.2132https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14602/68152This study aims to evaluate a number of procedures that have been proposed to enhance cross-cultural comparability of personality and value data. A priori procedures (anchoring vignettes and direct measures of response styles (i.e. acquiescence, extremity, midpoint responding, and social desirability), a posteriori procedures focusing on data transformations prior to analysis (ipsatization and item parcelling), and two data modelling procedures (treating data as continuous vs as ordered categories) were compared using data collected from university students in 16 countries. We found that (i) anchoring vignettes showed lack of invariance, so they were not bias-free; (ii) anchoring vignettes showed higher internal consistencies than raw scores where all other correction procedures, notably ipsatization, showed lower internal consistencies; (iii) in measurement invariance testing, no procedure yielded scalar invariance; anchoring vignettes and item parcelling slightly improved comparability, response style correction did not affect it, and ipsatization resulted in lower comparability; (iv) treating Likert-scale data as categorical resulted in higher levels of comparability; (v) factor scores of scales extracted from different procedures showed similar correlational patterning; and (vi) response style correction was the only procedure that suggested improvement in external validity of country-level conscientiousness. We conclude that, although no procedure resolves all comparability issues, anchoring vignettes, parcelling, and treating data as ordered categories seem promising to alleviate incomparability. We advise caution in uncritically applying any of these procedures.enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessArticleGeneral rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. - Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. - You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain - You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal" Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/8503808394919664040https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/1fcc923a-2ee9-4f04-80e3-cafe02682006(c) Universiteit van TilburgHe, J.§0000-0001-7310-4861Van De Vijver, Fons J.r.Fetvadjiev, Velichko H.De Carmen Dominguez Espinosa, AlejandraAdams, B.G.§0000-0001-5968-1996Alonso-arbiol, ItziarAydinli-karakulak, ArzuBuzea, CarmenDimitrova, RadosvetaFortin, AlvaroHapunda, GivenMa, SangSargautyte, RutaSim, SamanthaSchachner, Maja K.Suryani, AngelaZeinoun, PiaZhang, RuiMõttus, René