Welzel et al. (2021) claim that non-invariance of instruments is inconclusive and inconsequential in the field for cross-cultural value measurement. In this response, we contend that several key arguments on which Welzel et al. (2021) base their critique of invariance testing are conceptually and statistically incorrect. First, Welzel et al. (2021) claim that value measurement follows a formative rather than reflective logic. Yet they do not provide sufficient theoretical arguments for this conceptualization, nor do they discuss the disadvantages of this approach for validation of instruments. Second, their claim that strong inter-item correlations cannot be retrieved when means are close to the endpoint of scales ignores the existence of factor-analytic approaches for ordered-categorical indicators. Third, Welzel et al. (2021) propose that rather than of relying on invariance tests, comparability can be assessed by studying the connection with theoretically related constructs. However, their proposal ignores that external validation through nomological linkages hinges on the assumption of comparability. By means of two examples, we illustrate that violating the assumptions of measurement invariance can distort conclusions substantially. Following the advice of Welzel et al. (2021) implies discarding a tool that has proven to be very useful for comparativists.

韦尔泽尔等人。(2021) 声称，在跨文化价值测量领域，工具的非不变性是不确定和无关紧要的。在这个回应中，我们认为 Welzel 等人提出的几个关键论点。（2021）基于他们对不变性测试的批评在概念上和统计上是不正确的。首先，Welzel 等人。(2021) 声称价值衡量遵循形成性而非反思性逻辑。然而，他们没有为这种概念化提供足够的理论论据，也没有讨论这种方法在验证工具方面的缺点。其次，他们声称当均值接近尺度端点时无法检索到强项间相关性，这忽略了有序分类指标的因子分析方法的存在。第三，Welzel 等人。（2021）提出，可以通过研究与理论相关结构的联系来评估可比性，而不是依赖于不变性检验。然而，他们的提议忽略了通过法则联系的外部验证取决于可比性的假设。通过两个例子，我们说明违反测量不变性假设会严重扭曲结论。遵循 Welzel 等人的建议。(2021) 意味着放弃一个已被证明对比较主义者非常有用的工具。我们说明，违反测量不变性的假设会严重扭曲结论。遵循 Welzel 等人的建议。(2021) 意味着放弃一个已被证明对比较主义者非常有用的工具。我们说明，违反测量不变性的假设会严重扭曲结论。遵循 Welzel 等人的建议。(2021) 意味着放弃一个已被证明对比较主义者非常有用的工具。