Factorial validity and reliability of the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale for measuring cultural orientation

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL International Journal of Intercultural Relations Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102153
Betul Keles-Gordesli , Mary Leamy , Trevor Murrells , Annmarie Grealish
{"title":"Factorial validity and reliability of the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale for measuring cultural orientation","authors":"Betul Keles-Gordesli ,&nbsp;Mary Leamy ,&nbsp;Trevor Murrells ,&nbsp;Annmarie Grealish","doi":"10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aimed to investigate the factor structure of the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale and assess its validity and reliability. The sample consisted of 299 secondary school students aged 14–16 from Turkey (N = 176), Ireland (N = 70), and England (N = 53). The total sample was divided into halves, Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the first half (N = 150) and the confirmatory factor analysis on the remaining sample (N = 149). Cognitive interviews were conducted with seven adolescents from Turkey and England to provide further evidence of validity. The mean age was 15.21 years (range 14–16 years). EFA generated a four-factor model in which all items except one loaded on the expected factors whereas the one item (labeled as VC4) that was expected to load on the factor representing ‘vertical collectivism’ loaded higher on the factor representing ‘horizontal collectivism’. Cognitive interview results supported the EFA results. After omitting the problematic item, fit indices showed a better fit to the data and the scale had good and acceptable reliability. A previously identified model, in which VC4 was assigned to the HC factor and HC3 and HI4 were excluded from the analysis, demonstrated a slightly better fit for the majority of fit indices. For valid and reliable results, the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale needs to be further developed by clarifying vague or ambiguous terms. Future research should also replicate this study with a larger sample and in different settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48216,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 102153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176725000161","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the factor structure of the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale and assess its validity and reliability. The sample consisted of 299 secondary school students aged 14–16 from Turkey (N = 176), Ireland (N = 70), and England (N = 53). The total sample was divided into halves, Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the first half (N = 150) and the confirmatory factor analysis on the remaining sample (N = 149). Cognitive interviews were conducted with seven adolescents from Turkey and England to provide further evidence of validity. The mean age was 15.21 years (range 14–16 years). EFA generated a four-factor model in which all items except one loaded on the expected factors whereas the one item (labeled as VC4) that was expected to load on the factor representing ‘vertical collectivism’ loaded higher on the factor representing ‘horizontal collectivism’. Cognitive interview results supported the EFA results. After omitting the problematic item, fit indices showed a better fit to the data and the scale had good and acceptable reliability. A previously identified model, in which VC4 was assigned to the HC factor and HC3 and HI4 were excluded from the analysis, demonstrated a slightly better fit for the majority of fit indices. For valid and reliable results, the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale needs to be further developed by clarifying vague or ambiguous terms. Future research should also replicate this study with a larger sample and in different settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: IJIR is dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of theory, practice, and research in intergroup relations. The contents encompass theoretical developments, field-based evaluations of training techniques, empirical discussions of cultural similarities and differences, and critical descriptions of new training approaches. Papers selected for publication in IJIR are judged to increase our understanding of intergroup tensions and harmony. Issue-oriented and cross-discipline discussion is encouraged. The highest priority is given to manuscripts that join theory, practice, and field research design. By theory, we mean conceptual schemes focused on the nature of cultural differences and similarities.
期刊最新文献
The double-edged sword of acculturation: Navigating work-family conflict among immigrants Factorial validity and reliability of the 16-item individualism and collectivism scale for measuring cultural orientation Towards inclusion through polyculturalism: A critical review of cultural hybridity The role of intergroup emotions at understanding the acculturation preferences toward valued and devalued immigrants in Mexico and Spain Integrating Pakistani and Western cultural identities through globalization-based acculturation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1