↓ Skip to main content

Ensuring cross-cultural data comparability by means of anchoring vignettes in heterogeneous refugee samples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ensuring cross-cultural data comparability by means of anchoring vignettes in heterogeneous refugee samples
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12874-023-02015-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalja Menold, Louise Biddle, Hagen von Hermanni, Jasmin Kadel, Kayvan Bozorgmehr

Abstract

Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance have been indicators of bias-free statistical cross-group comparisons, although they are difficult to verify in the data. Low comparability of translated questionnaires or the different understanding of response formats by respondents might lead to rejection of measurement invariance and point to comparability bias in multi-language surveys. Anchoring vignettes have been proposed as a method to control for the different understanding of response categories by respondents (the latter is referred to as differential item functioning related to response categories or rating scales: RC-DIF). We evaluate the question whether the cross-cultural comparability of data can be assured by means of anchoring vignettes or by considering socio-demographic heterogeneity as an alternative approach. We used the Health System Responsiveness (HSR) questionnaire and collected survey data in English (n = 183) and Arabic (n = 121) in a random sample of refugees in the third largest German federal state. We conducted multiple-group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (MGCFA) to analyse measurement invariance and compared the results when 1) using rescaled data on the basis of anchoring vignettes (non-parametric approach), 2) including information on RC-DIF from the analyses with anchoring vignettes as covariates (parametric approach) and 3) including socio-demographic covariates. For the HSR, every level of measurement invariance between the Arabic and English languages was rejected. Implementing rescaling or modelling on the basis of anchoring vignettes provided superior results over the initial MGCFA analysis, since configural, metric and - for ordered categorical analyses-scalar invariance could not be rejected. A consideration of socio-demographic variables did not show such an improvement. Surveys may consider anchoring vignettes as a method to assess cross-cultural comparability of data, whereas socio-demographic variables cannot be used to improve data comparability as a standalone method. More research on the efficient implementation of anchoring vignettes and further development of methods to incorporate them when modelling measurement invariance is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Lecturer 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 1 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,235,055
of 25,081,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#652
of 2,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,558
of 341,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.