Premium
We Need to Compare, but How? Measurement Equivalence in Comparative Public Administration
Author(s) -
Jilke Sebastian,
Meuleman Bart,
Van de Walle Steven
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
public administration review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.721
H-Index - 139
eISSN - 1540-6210
pISSN - 0033-3352
DOI - 10.1111/puar.12318
Subject(s) - equivalence (formal languages) , test (biology) , perspective (graphical) , confirmatory factor analysis , political science , government (linguistics) , public administration , public relations , sociology , psychology , structural equation modeling , computer science , mathematics , statistics , paleontology , discrete mathematics , artificial intelligence , biology , linguistics , philosophy
In addition to public administrations and public managers, there is increasing interest in studying citizens’ interactions with and views toward government from a comparative perspective in order to put theories to the test using cross‐national surveys. However, this will only succeed if we adequately deal with the diverse ways in which respondents in different countries and regions perceive and respond to survey measures. This article examines the concept of cross‐national measurement equivalence in public administration research and explores methods for establishing equivalence. Two methodologies are examined that test and correct for measurement nonequivalence: multiple‐group confirmatory factor analysis and multilevel mixture item response theory. These techniques are used to test and establish the cross‐national measurement equivalence of two popular measurement constructs: citizen satisfaction with public services and trust in public institutions. Results show that appropriately dealing with nonequivalence accounts for different forms of biases that otherwise would be undetected. The article contributes to the methodological advancement in studying public administration beyond domestic borders.