CROSS-CULTURAL MARKETING RESEARCH: ADVANCING MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE PRACTICES FOR ROBUST EQUIVALENCE TESTING
DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.19487093Published:
2026-04-09Downloads
Abstract
This study examines the current state of measurement invariance in cross-cultural marketing research, identifying a critical imbalance between widespread method usage and methodological rigor. Findings indicate that while Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA) remains the dominant approach, its application is often incomplete, frequently stopping at configural or metric invariance. This failure to reach scalar invariance limits the validity of cross-cultural comparisons, particularly when comparing latent means. Furthermore, inconsistent reporting practices and a lack of transparency regarding model specifications and fit indices undermine the reproducibility and credibility of findings. The review identifies significant methodological challenges, including sample heterogeneity, cultural bias in measurement instruments, and limited statistical power, which complicate testing and lead to inconsistent results. Although advanced methodological trends like partial invariance and alignment optimization offer more flexible and nuanced solutions, their adoption remains uneven. This highlights a persistent gap between methodological innovation and actual research practices. To address these issues, the study recommends improving methodological training, standardizing reporting practices, and embracing open science to ensure more robust and reliable cross-cultural research.
Keywords:
Cross-cultura marketing marketing research methodological rigor research transparencyReferences
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Cascio, W. F. (2020). Methodological practices in international business research: An after-action review of challenges and solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9), 1593–1608. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00353-7
Cong-Lem, N. (2025). Scale validation in applied linguistics: Methodological trends and challenges. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100217
Dong, Y., & Dumas, D. G. (2020). Are personality measures valid for different populations? A systematic review of measurement invariance across cultures, gender, and age. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109956
Fischer, R., Karl, J., Luczak-Roesch, M., & Hartle, L. (2025). Why We Need to Rethink Measurement Invariance: The Role of Measurement Invariance for Cross-Cultural Research. Cross-Cultural Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971241312459
Fischer, R., & Rudnev, M. (2024). From MIsgivings to MIse-en-scène: The role of invariance in personality science. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241283081
Flake, J., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2023). Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.010
Lacko, D., Čeněk, J., Točík, J., Avsec, A., Đorđević, V., Genc, A., Haka, F., Šakotić-Kurbalija, J., Mohorić, T., Neziri, I., & Subotić, S. (2022). The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism– Collectivism Self-Report Scales. Cross-Cultural Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211068971
Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., Behr, D., Davidov, E., Roover, K. De, Jak, S., Meitinger, K., Menold, N., Muthén, B., Rudnev, M., Schmidt, P., & Schoot, R. van de. (2022). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805
Liengaard, B. D. (2024). Measurement invariance testing in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114581
Lopez-Vergara, H. I., Yang, M., Weiss, N. H., Stamates, A., Spillane, N. S., & Ewing, S. W. F. (2021). The cultural equivalence of measurement in substance use research. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000512
Maassen, E., D’Urso, E. D., Assen, M. A. V. van, Nuijten, M. B., Roover, K. De, & Wicherts, J. (2023). The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000624
McNeish, D. (2025). Dynamic measurement invariance cutoffs for two-group fit index differences. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000767
Navarro-González, M. C., Padilla, J.-L., & Benítez, I. (2024). Analyzing Measurement Invariance for Studying the Gender Gap in Educational Testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 40(5), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000820
Pacewicz, C. E., Hill, C. R., Lee, S., Myers, N. D., Prilleltensky, I., McMahon, A., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Brincks, A. M. (2021). Testing Measurement Invariance in Physical Education and Exercise Science: A Tutorial Using the Well-Being Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 26(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367x.2021.1964508
Solarino, A., & Buckley, P. (2022). Equivalence in international business research: A three-step approach. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00562-2
Somaraju, A. V, Nye, C. D., & Olenick, J. (2021). A Review of Measurement Equivalence in Organizational Research: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next? Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211056524
Wilson, C. J., Bowden, S., Byrne, L., Joshua, N., Marx, W., & Weiss, L. G. (2023). The cross-cultural generalizability of cognitive ability measures: A systematic literature review. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101751
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sistiana, Lukmanul Hakim, Dahrul Aman Harahap
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
