IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v52y2023i3p1420-1437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence of Validity Does not Rule out Systematic Bias: A Commentary on Nomological Noise and Cross-Cultural Invariance

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Fischer
  • Johannes Alfons Karl
  • Johnny R. J. Fontaine
  • Ype H. Poortinga

Abstract

We comment on the argument by Welzel, Brunkert, Kruse and Inglehart (2021) that theoretically expected associations in nomological networks should take priority over invariance tests in cross-national research. We agree that narrow application of individual tools, such as multi-group confirmatory factor analysis with data that violates the assumptions of these techniques, can be misleading. However, findings that fit expectations of nomological networks may not be free of bias. We present supporting evidence of systematic bias affecting nomological network relationships from a) previous research on intelligence and response styles, b) two simulation studies, and c) data on the choice index from the World Value Survey (WVS). Our main point is that nomological network analysis by itself is insufficient to rule out systematic bias in data. We point out how a thoughtful exploration of sources of biases in cross-national data can contribute to stronger theory development.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Fischer & Johannes Alfons Karl & Johnny R. J. Fontaine & Ype H. Poortinga, 2023. "Evidence of Validity Does not Rule out Systematic Bias: A Commentary on Nomological Noise and Cross-Cultural Invariance," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(3), pages 1420-1437, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:1420-1437
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241221091756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241221091756
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241221091756?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:1420-1437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.