首页> 外文期刊>Asia Pacific journal of management >A multi-country, multi-sector replication challenge to the validity of the cultural tightness-looseness measure
【24h】

A multi-country, multi-sector replication challenge to the validity of the cultural tightness-looseness measure

机译:一个多国,多部门复制挑战对文化紧张的有效性 - 松散措施

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this study, we assess the internal and external validity of Gelfand et al.'s (2011) recently developed measure of cultural tightness-looseness (CTL). Our study is composed of six countries (China, Mexico, Netherlands Russia, Spain, U.S.) with three subsamples (business professionals, K-12 teachers, college students) per country. For these 18 subsamples, confirmatory factor analyses failed to support the unidimensional structure of the 6-item CTL measure. Exploratory factor analyses provided further evidence that the 6-item CTL measure does not have a unidimensional structure across cultures. Additionally, inter-rater agreement analyses did not support the use of aggregated scores to construct country-level scores for the CTL index. We also found that country rankings of CTL scores (in total and for subsamples) were substantively different from those reported by Gelfand et al. (2011). Further country-level correlation analyses yielded mixed support for the external validity of the CTL scores. We conclude with a commentary on the implications of our study for cross-cultural research.
机译:在这项研究中,我们评估了Gelfand等人的内部和外部有效性。(2011年)最近开发了文化紧张 - 松散(CTL)的衡量标准。我们的研究由六个国家(中国,墨西哥,荷兰俄罗斯,西班牙,美国)组成,每个国家都有三个亚体验(商业专业人士,K-12教师,大学生)。对于这18个副样片,确认因子分析未能支持6项CTL测量的单向结构。探索性因子分析提供了进一步证据表明,6项CTL测量没有跨越文化的单向结构。此外,Rater间协议分析不支持使用聚合分数来构建CTL指数的国家级分数。我们还发现CTL分数的国家排名(总和对于子样本)与Gelfand等人报告的CTL分数实质性地不同。 (2011)。进一步的国家级相关分析对CTL分数的外部有效性产生了混合支持。我们讨论了我们对跨文化研究的影响的含义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号