{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01355421686746988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006024096385542169, 'mean_word_length': 6.031746031746032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Necessary but Insufficient

Abstract Cross-national data production in social science research has increased dramatically in recent decades. Assessing the comparability of data is necessary before drawing substantive conclusions that are based on cross-national data. Researchers assessing data comparability typically use either quantitative methods such as multigroup confirmatory factor analysis or qualitative methods such as online probing. Because both methods have complementary strengths and weaknesses, this study applies both multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and online probing in a mixed-methods approach to assess the comparability of constructive patriotism and nationalism, two important concepts in the study of national identity. Previous measurement invariance tests failed to achieve scalar measurement invariance, which prohibits a cross-national comparison of latent means (Davidov 2009). The arrival of the 2013 ISSP Module on National Identity has encouraged a reassessment of both constructs and a push to understand why scalar invariance cannot be achieved. Using the example of constructive patriotism and nationalism, this study demonstrates how the combination of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and online probing can uncover and explain issues related to cross-national comparability.