The Problem Cross-cultural research has received substantial attention from both academia and practice as it contributes to expand current theory and implements culturally successful human resource strategies. Although the quantity of this type of research has increased, several researchers have raised methodological concerns that the majority of cross-cultural research has simply assumed or ignored measurement invariance. The Solution In this article, we first provide the meaning for measurement invariance, discuss why it is important, and then explain stepwise confirmatory factor analysis procedures to test measurement invariance. We also diagnose the current research practice in the field of human resource development (HRD) based on a review of cross-cultural, comparative research published in the major HRD journals. Finally, we demonstrate that the group difference test results that have been found without ensuring measurement invariance can, in fact, be false. The Stakeholders This article contributes to the HRD literature and practice in two ways. First, HRD researchers are invited to recognize the importance of sophisticated research methodology, such as measurement invariance, and to examine item bias across different groups so they can make a meaningful and valid comparison. The same attention is advisable to any practitioner who attempts to identify group differences using multinational/cultural data. This article also provides HRD scholars and practitioners with specific multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) procedures to facilitate empirical tests of measurement models across different groups and thus disseminate the methodological advances in the field of HRD. It is our hope that the present article raises awareness, circulates relevant knowledge, and encourages more HRD scholars to think critically about measurement.

中文翻译：

---

跨文化研究不进行测量不变性检验的后果：当前研究实践和建议的回顾

问题跨文化研究受到学术界和实践界的广泛关注，因为它有助于扩展当前的理论并实施在文化上成功的人力资源战略。尽管这类研究的数量有所增加，但一些研究人员提出了方法论上的担忧，即大多数跨文化研究只是假设或忽略了测量不变性。解决方案在本文中，我们首先提供测量不变性的含义，讨论其重要性，然后解释逐步验证性因子分析程序以测试测量不变性。我们还将根据在主要人力资源开发期刊上发表的跨文化，比较研究的综述来诊断人力资源开发（HRD）领域的当前研究实践。最后，我们证明，在没有确保测量不变性的情况下发现的组差异测试结果实际上可能是错误的。利益相关者本文通过两种方式为HRD文献和实践做出了贡献。首先，请HRD研究人员认识到复杂的研究方法（例如测量不变性）的重要性，并检查不同群体之间的项目偏差，以便他们进行有意义且有效的比较。任何尝试使用跨国/文化数据来识别群体差异的从业者都应给予同样的关注。本文还为HRD学者和从业人员提供了特定的多组验证性因子分析（MGCFA）程序，以促进对不同组的测量模型进行实证检验，从而传播HRD领域的方法学进展。我们希望，本文能引起人们的注意，传播相关知识，并鼓励更多的人力资源开发学者对测量进行批判性思考。