Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statistische Methoden der Auswertung kulturvergleichender Studien

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbuch Stress und Kultur

Zusammenfassung

Bei der Auswertung kulturvergleichender Studien lassen sich im Allgemeinen zwei große Klassen von Verfahren unterscheiden (Fontaine, 2008):

  1. 1)

    Verfahren, die sich auf den Vergleich einiger weniger Kulturen beziehen, die a priori nach spezifischen theoretischen Überlegungen ausgewählt wurden.

  2. 2)

    Verfahren, die sich auf den Vergleich von Kulturen beziehen, die aus einer Population von Kulturen per Zufall ausgewählt wurden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2006). The use of Monte Carlo studies in structural equation modeling research. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 385–426). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, D. J. & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis, London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. (1995). Modelle der Messung von Personen in Situationen. Weinheim: PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 869–885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M. & Schmitt, M. (2011). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden (2., korrigierte Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Langeheine, R. & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by latent class analysis: A primer. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34,195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feskens, R. & Hox, J. (2011). Multilevel structural equation modeling for cross-cultural research: Exploring resampling methods to overcome small sample size problems. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (pp. 341 – 356). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Traditional and multilevel approaches in cross-cultural research: An integration of methodological frameworks. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 65 – 92). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R. (2006). Power analysis in covariance structure models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 69 – 115). Greenwood, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. & Maas, C. J. M. (2001). The accuracy of multilevel structural equation modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, R. (2011). Using a differential item functioning approach to investigate measurement invariance. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (pp. 415 – 432). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kankaras, M., Moors, G. & Vermunt, J. K. (2011). Testing for measurement invariance with latent class analysis. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (pp. 359 – 384). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, C. J. M. & Hox, J. J. (2003). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46, 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, C. J. M. & Hox, J. J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, C. J. M. & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, B. & Billiet, J. (2009). A Monte Carlo sample size study: How many countries are needed for accurate multilevel SEM ? Survey Research Methodology, 3, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. & Imahori, T. T. (2009). Profiling family communication standards: A U. S.-Japan comparison. Communication Research, 36, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E., & Tein, J.-Y. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (2007). Factorial invariance: Historical perspectives and new problems.In: R. Cudeck & R. MacCallum (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions (pp. 130 – 152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O. (1983). Latent variable structural equation moderling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 376–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 599–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion (2., vollst. überarb. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, Monograph Supplement No. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selig, J. P., Card, N. A. & Little, T. (2008). Latent variable structural equation modeling in cross-cultural research: Multigroup and multilevel approaches. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 93 – 119). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takane, Y., & De Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Hemert, D. A. & Poortinga, Y. H (Eds.) (2008). Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures. New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281 – 324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FB Erziehungswissenschaften und Psychologie Arbeitsbereich Methoden und Evaluation, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Michael Eid

  2. Fachbereich 8: Psychologie Methodenlehre und Evaluation, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Berlin, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Tanja Lischetzke

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Michael Eid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Tanja Lischetzke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Eid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Wirtschafts- u. Sozialwiss., University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück, Caprivistr. 30A, Osnabrück, 49076, Germany

    Petia Genkova

  2. FB Wirtschaftswissenschaften, University of Applied Sciences Merseburg, Geusaer Str. 88, Merseburg, 06217, Germany

    Tobias Ringeisen

  3. Michigan State University Department of Psychology, East Lansing, 48824, Michigan, USA

    Frederick T. L. Leong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eid, M., Lischetzke, T. (2013). Statistische Methoden der Auswertung kulturvergleichender Studien. In: Genkova, P., Ringeisen, T., Leong, F. (eds) Handbuch Stress und Kultur. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93449-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93449-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-17498-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-93449-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation