System justification is a widely researched topic in social and political psychology. One major measurement instrument in system justification research is the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS). This scale has been used, among others, for comparisons across social groups in different countries. Such comparisons rely on the assumption that the scale is measurement equivalent. However, this assumption has never been comprehensively tested. Thus, the present two studies assessed the measurement equivalence of the G-SJS following classic measurement equivalence guidelines (i.e., multigroup confirmatory factor analyses) in Study 1 and using a new method for comparing larger numbers of groups in Study 2 (i.e., alignment optimization). In Study 1, we analysed the measurement equivalence in Great Britain (n = 444), Germany (n = 454), and France (n = 463). In Study 2, we used a publicly available dataset consisting of 66 samples from 30 countries (N = 13,495) to again assess the measurement equivalence of the scale. Results indicated (partial) metric equivalence, but not scalar equivalence in both studies. Overall, the studies indicate that mean comparisons across the examined countries are not warranted with the current form of the G-SJS. The scale needs to be revised for valid cross-country comparisons of means.

中文翻译：

---

跨国家使用通用系统论证量表是否合理？测试其测量等价性

系统辩护是社会和政治心理学中广泛研究的课题。系统论证研究中的一个主要测量工具是通用系统论证量表 (G-SJS)。除其他外，该量表已被用于比较不同国家的社会群体。这种比较依赖于规模是测量等效的假设。然而，这一假设从未经过全面检验。因此，目前的两项研究根据研究 1 中的经典测量等效指南（即多组验证性因素分析）评估了 G-SJS 的测量等效性，并在研究 2 中使用新方法比较更多组（即对齐优化） ). 在研究 1 中，我们分析了英国的测量等价性（n = 444）、德国（n  = 454）和法国（n  = 463）。在研究 2 中，我们使用了一个由来自 30 个国家的 66 个样本（ N = 13,495）组成的公开数据集 来再次评估量表的测量等价性。结果表明（部分）度量等价，但在两项研究中不是标量等价。总的来说，研究表明，当前形式的 G-SJS 没有必要对被调查国家进行平均比较。需要对量表进行修订，以便对方法进行有效的跨国比较。