Illustrates how using identical and equivalent indicators improves validity in cross-national research, suggesting new methodologies for reliable assessment.
How can valid comparisons be made in crossnational research when so many terms and concepts differ in their meanings from country to country? In this paper the authors argue and illustrate the significant claim that by using “equivalent indicators” in different countries and relating them to “identical indicators,” the validity of cross-national research can be safeguarded. Only by combining cross-national and nation-specific indicators can reliable and valid assessments be made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Przeworski et al. (1966) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: