The Experts below are selected from a list of 56649 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fons J R Van De Vijver - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a mixed methods approach to the analysis of bias in Cross Cultural Studies
Sociological Methods & Research, 2019Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De Vijver, Isabel Benitez, Joseluis PadillaAbstract:The aim of the study is to illustrate a comprehensive approach to item bias in Cross-Cultural research by integrating quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed methods design. We studied respons...
-
bias and equivalence in Cross Cultural research
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2012Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De VijverAbstract:Bias and equivalence are key concepts in the methodology of Cross-Cultural Studies. Bias is a generic term for any challenge of the comparability of Cross-Cultural data; bias leads to invalid conclusions. The demonstration of equivalence (lack of bias) is a prerequisite for any Cross-Cultural comparison. we first describe considerations that are relevant when choosing instruments in a Cross-Cultural study, notably the question of whether an existing or new instrument is to be preferred.We then describe the definition, manifestation, and sources of three types of bias (construct, method, and item bias), and three levels of equivalence (construct, measurement unit, and full score equivalence). We provide strategies to minimize bias and achieve equivalence that apply either to the design, implementation, or statistical analysis phase of a study. The need to integrate these strategies in Cross-Cultural Studies is emphasized so as to increase the validity of conclusions regarding Cross-Cultural similarities and differences and rule out alternative explanations of Cross-Cultural differences. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss2/8
-
testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large scale Cross Cultural Studies addressing the issue of nonequivalence
International Journal of Testing, 2010Co-Authors: Barbara M Byrne, Fons J R Van De VijverAbstract:A critical assumption in Cross-Cultural comparative research is that the instrument measures the same construct(s) in exactly the same way aCross all groups (i.e., the instrument is measurement and structurally equivalent). Structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures are commonly used in testing these assumptions of multigroup equivalence. However, when comparisons comprise large-scale Cross-Cultural Studies, the standard SEM strategy can be extremely problematic both statistically and substantively. Based on responses to a 14-item version of the Family Values Scale (Georgas, 1999) by 5,482 university students from 27 nations around the globe, we describe and illustrate these difficulties. We propose and report on a dual modal two-pronged strategy that focuses on countries as well as scale items in determining the possible sources of bias. Suggestions for minimizing problems in tests for multigroup equivalence in large-scale Cross-Cultural Studies are proffered.
-
Methodological Issues in Psychological Research on Culture
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2000Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De Vijver, Kwok LeungAbstract:The extent to which methodological tools can help correct the overemphasis on fact finding and speed up the slow theoretical progress in Cross-Cultural psychology is analyzed. Two types of contributions to the current predicament are delineated. First, Cross-Cultural psychologists have created their own partis pris. Second, partis pris have been inherited from mainstream psychology. In the future, most Cross-Cultural Studies will be carried out by researchers who have an interest in Cultural variations on specific variables or instruments, whereas the group of researchers who spend their professional lives in Cross-Cultural psychology will remain small but influential. Methodological issues arising in Studies by both groups are described. Important trends are (a) the change from exploration to explanation of Cross-Cultural differences, which has implications for the design of Cross-Cultural Studies; and (b) the so-far-hesitant usage of recently developed statistical techniques, such as item response theor...
-
methods and data analysis for Cross Cultural research
1997Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De Vijver, Kwok LeungAbstract:This book gives an up-to-date overview of methodological and data-analytical issues of Cross-Cultural Studies. Written by leading experts in the field, it presents the most important tools for doing Cross-Cultural research and outlines design considerations, methods, and analytical techniques that can improve ecological validity and help researchers to avoid pitfalls in Cross-Cultural psychology. By focusing on the relevant research questions that can be tackled with particular methods, it provides practical guidance on how to translate conceptual questions into decisions on study design and statistical techniques. Featuring examples from cognitive and educational assessment, personality, health, and interCultural communication and management, and illustrating key techniques in feature boxes, this concise and accessible guide is essential reading for researchers, graduate students, and professionals who work with culture-comparative data.
Robin M. Murray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
biological life course and Cross Cultural Studies all point toward the value of dimensional and developmental ratings in the classification of psychosis
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2007Co-Authors: Rina Dutta, Talya Greene, Jean Addington, Kwame Mckenzie, Michael R Phillips, Robin M. MurrayAbstract:The diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV1) are based on the premise that it is a discrete illness entity, in particular, distinct from the affective psychoses. This assumption has persisted for more than a century, even though patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia show a wide diversity of symptoms and outcomes, and no biological or psychological feature has been found to be pathognomonic of the disorder. However, there has been sustained, and indeed growing, criticism of the concept. For example, writing about the diagnosis of schizophrenia more than a decade ago,2 one of Britain's most sophisticated nosological experts, Ian Brockington, enjoined “It is important to loosen the grip which the concept of ‘schizophrenia’ has on the minds of psychiatrists. Schizophrenia is an idea whose very essence is equivocal, a nosological category without natural boundaries, a barren hypothesis. Such a blurred concept is ‘not a valid object of scientific enquiry’.”3 Should Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition(DSM-V), persist with the neo-Kraepelinian concept of schizophrenia with all its defects, or should it deconstruct psychosis into its component dimensions? In this article, we will address the question by considering 2 main themes, firstly, the role of culture and ethnicity in the diagnosis of psychosis, and secondly, a life course approach to understanding psychosis. We will then discuss whether more progress would be achieved in DSM-V by abandoning the familiar categorical system and instead moving to a dimensional system which rates both developmental impairment and symptom factor scores. However, we will begin by briefly reviewing the recent history of the classification of the psychoses.
-
biological life course and Cross Cultural Studies all point toward the value of dimensional and developmental ratings in the classification of psychosis
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2007Co-Authors: Rina Dutta, Talya Greene, Jean Addington, Kwame Mckenzie, Michael R Phillips, Robin M. MurrayAbstract:The diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV1) are based on the premise that it is a discrete illness entity, in particular, distinct from the affective psychoses. This assumption has persisted for more than a century, even though patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia show a wide diversity of symptoms and outcomes, and no biological or psychological feature has been found to be pathognomonic of the disorder. However, there has been sustained, and indeed growing, criticism of the concept. For example, writing about the diagnosis of schizophrenia more than a decade ago,2 one of Britain's most sophisticated nosological experts, Ian Brockington, enjoined “It is important to loosen the grip which the concept of ‘schizophrenia’ has on the minds of psychiatrists. Schizophrenia is an idea whose very essence is equivocal, a nosological category without natural boundaries, a barren hypothesis. Such a blurred concept is ‘not a valid object of scientific enquiry’.”3 Should Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition(DSM-V), persist with the neo-Kraepelinian concept of schizophrenia with all its defects, or should it deconstruct psychosis into its component dimensions? In this article, we will address the question by considering 2 main themes, firstly, the role of culture and ethnicity in the diagnosis of psychosis, and secondly, a life course approach to understanding psychosis. We will then discuss whether more progress would be achieved in DSM-V by abandoning the familiar categorical system and instead moving to a dimensional system which rates both developmental impairment and symptom factor scores. However, we will begin by briefly reviewing the recent history of the classification of the psychoses.
Rina Dutta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
biological life course and Cross Cultural Studies all point toward the value of dimensional and developmental ratings in the classification of psychosis
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2007Co-Authors: Rina Dutta, Talya Greene, Jean Addington, Kwame Mckenzie, Michael R Phillips, Robin M. MurrayAbstract:The diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV1) are based on the premise that it is a discrete illness entity, in particular, distinct from the affective psychoses. This assumption has persisted for more than a century, even though patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia show a wide diversity of symptoms and outcomes, and no biological or psychological feature has been found to be pathognomonic of the disorder. However, there has been sustained, and indeed growing, criticism of the concept. For example, writing about the diagnosis of schizophrenia more than a decade ago,2 one of Britain's most sophisticated nosological experts, Ian Brockington, enjoined “It is important to loosen the grip which the concept of ‘schizophrenia’ has on the minds of psychiatrists. Schizophrenia is an idea whose very essence is equivocal, a nosological category without natural boundaries, a barren hypothesis. Such a blurred concept is ‘not a valid object of scientific enquiry’.”3 Should Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition(DSM-V), persist with the neo-Kraepelinian concept of schizophrenia with all its defects, or should it deconstruct psychosis into its component dimensions? In this article, we will address the question by considering 2 main themes, firstly, the role of culture and ethnicity in the diagnosis of psychosis, and secondly, a life course approach to understanding psychosis. We will then discuss whether more progress would be achieved in DSM-V by abandoning the familiar categorical system and instead moving to a dimensional system which rates both developmental impairment and symptom factor scores. However, we will begin by briefly reviewing the recent history of the classification of the psychoses.
-
biological life course and Cross Cultural Studies all point toward the value of dimensional and developmental ratings in the classification of psychosis
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2007Co-Authors: Rina Dutta, Talya Greene, Jean Addington, Kwame Mckenzie, Michael R Phillips, Robin M. MurrayAbstract:The diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV1) are based on the premise that it is a discrete illness entity, in particular, distinct from the affective psychoses. This assumption has persisted for more than a century, even though patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia show a wide diversity of symptoms and outcomes, and no biological or psychological feature has been found to be pathognomonic of the disorder. However, there has been sustained, and indeed growing, criticism of the concept. For example, writing about the diagnosis of schizophrenia more than a decade ago,2 one of Britain's most sophisticated nosological experts, Ian Brockington, enjoined “It is important to loosen the grip which the concept of ‘schizophrenia’ has on the minds of psychiatrists. Schizophrenia is an idea whose very essence is equivocal, a nosological category without natural boundaries, a barren hypothesis. Such a blurred concept is ‘not a valid object of scientific enquiry’.”3 Should Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition(DSM-V), persist with the neo-Kraepelinian concept of schizophrenia with all its defects, or should it deconstruct psychosis into its component dimensions? In this article, we will address the question by considering 2 main themes, firstly, the role of culture and ethnicity in the diagnosis of psychosis, and secondly, a life course approach to understanding psychosis. We will then discuss whether more progress would be achieved in DSM-V by abandoning the familiar categorical system and instead moving to a dimensional system which rates both developmental impairment and symptom factor scores. However, we will begin by briefly reviewing the recent history of the classification of the psychoses.
Jing Zhou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a missing piece of the puzzle the organizational context in Cultural patterns of creativity
Management and Organization Review, 2010Co-Authors: Jing Zhou, Yanjie SuAbstract:In this article, we first review Cross-Cultural research, especially that concerning similarities and differences between East Asian and Western cultures, on creativity using laboratory tasks and tests. On the basis of this review, we then propose some directions for future Cross-Cultural research on creativity in the workplace. We emphasize the need to theorize why Cultural differences make a difference in creativity and directly investigate, rather than assume, effects of contextual factors on creativity. In this regard, two literatures on creativity – Cross-Cultural Studies using laboratory tasks and organizational Studies of employee creativity – can benefit tremendously from integration. We also call for more empirical research examining effects of culture on creativity in the workplace, especially in China.
-
a missing piece of the puzzle the organizational context in Cultural patterns of creativity
Management and Organization Review, 2010Co-Authors: Jing ZhouAbstract:In this article, we first review Cross-Cultural research, especially that concerning similarities and differences between East Asian and Western cultures, on creativity using laboratory tasks and tests. On the basis of this review, we then propose some directions for future Cross-Cultural research on creativity in the workplace. We emphasize the need to theorize why Cultural differences make a difference in creativity and directly investigate, rather than assume, effects of contextual factors on creativity. In this regard, two literatures on creativity – Cross-Cultural Studies using laboratory tasks and organizational Studies of employee creativity – can benefit tremendously from integration. We also call for more empirical research examining effects of culture on creativity in the workplace, especially in China.
Kwok Leung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Methodological Issues in Psychological Research on Culture
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2000Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De Vijver, Kwok LeungAbstract:The extent to which methodological tools can help correct the overemphasis on fact finding and speed up the slow theoretical progress in Cross-Cultural psychology is analyzed. Two types of contributions to the current predicament are delineated. First, Cross-Cultural psychologists have created their own partis pris. Second, partis pris have been inherited from mainstream psychology. In the future, most Cross-Cultural Studies will be carried out by researchers who have an interest in Cultural variations on specific variables or instruments, whereas the group of researchers who spend their professional lives in Cross-Cultural psychology will remain small but influential. Methodological issues arising in Studies by both groups are described. Important trends are (a) the change from exploration to explanation of Cross-Cultural differences, which has implications for the design of Cross-Cultural Studies; and (b) the so-far-hesitant usage of recently developed statistical techniques, such as item response theor...
-
methods and data analysis for Cross Cultural research
1997Co-Authors: Fons J R Van De Vijver, Kwok LeungAbstract:This book gives an up-to-date overview of methodological and data-analytical issues of Cross-Cultural Studies. Written by leading experts in the field, it presents the most important tools for doing Cross-Cultural research and outlines design considerations, methods, and analytical techniques that can improve ecological validity and help researchers to avoid pitfalls in Cross-Cultural psychology. By focusing on the relevant research questions that can be tackled with particular methods, it provides practical guidance on how to translate conceptual questions into decisions on study design and statistical techniques. Featuring examples from cognitive and educational assessment, personality, health, and interCultural communication and management, and illustrating key techniques in feature boxes, this concise and accessible guide is essential reading for researchers, graduate students, and professionals who work with culture-comparative data.