PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT ACROSS CULTURES Imported and Indigenous Instruments.

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT ACROSS CULTURES

Imported and Indigenous Instruments

LECTURE OUTLINE

• Background• Key Issues in Using Imported Tests

– Translation– Psychometric properties– Norms– Ethical issues – Gaps in culturally relevant assessments

• Widely used instruments

LECTURE OUTLINE (cont)

• Development of indigenous instruments: CPAI– Test construction– “Chinese” domains– Personality and clinical scales– Norms and standardization– Higher Order Factors

• Cross-cultural extensions: Emics go Etic• Conclusion

BACKGROUND

• Objectives of personality assessment

• Test availability

• Indigenous or imported instruments?

KEY ISSUES IN USING IMPORTED TESTS

KEY ISSUES IN USING IMPORTED TESTS

1. Adequacy of translation and adaptation2. Equivalence of translated and original

instruments3. Local research on reliability and validity4. Standardization of the translated instrument5. Use of original vs. local norms6. Cross-cultural differences in test scores7. Ethical standards and copyright issues in

test use8. Gaps in culturally-relevant constructs

TRANSLATION

• Back translation

• Equivalence of meaning

• Field testing

MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE

• Functional equivalence- Scales measure the same constructs indicated by inter- item or inter-scale correlations and patterns of correlation with external variables

• Metric equivalence– Same psychometric properties such as item difficulty

level, item-scale correlation, internal consistency and factor structures

• Scalar equivalence– Scales used the same way, indicate the same degree,

intensity or magnitude in both cultures; addresses issues such as acquiescence or response sets across cultures

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES in local culture

• Reliability -> relevance of construct– Internal consistency -> adequate translation– Test-retest reliability– Temporal stability– Factor structure

• Validity– Content– Construct

convergent with other related instruments discriminant

– Criterion: predicting specified outcomes

NORMS

• Local or imported norms?

• Research or assessment purposes?

• Relative or absolute judgments?

ETHICAL STANDARDS

• Translation versions

• Copyright

WIDELY USED TESTS

• Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

• Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

IS THE FFM SUFFICIENT?

• Cheung and Leung CPAI and NEO PI research with Chinese

• Additional factors: Interpersonal Relatedness (harmony, face, relationship orientation)

• IR factor replicated in Hawaii

GAPS IN ASSESSMENT

• Are important dimensions missing?

• Interpersonal Relationship factor in CPAI

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CPAI

Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory: combined emic-etic approach

Scales of importance to Chinese cultures

Scales believed to be universal

FIRST STEPS: GENERATING TRAITS

• Selection of contemporary novels

• Review of books on Chinese proverbs

• Collection of self-description statements

• Pilot survey of professionals

• Review of psychological literature

CHINESE DOMAINS

• Harmony• Relationship Orientation (Ren Qin)• Modernization• Thrift• Defensiveness (Ah Q mentality)• Graciousness• Veraciousness• Face• Family Orientation• Somatization

ITEM GENERATION AND SELECTION

• 20-30 items generated for 38 domains• 900 items screened for difficulty and pre-

tested• Trial version administered to over 1100

respondents• Item selection on statistical and conceptual

grounds• 22 personality and 12 clinical scales

STANDARDIZATION

• Over 2300 18-65 year olds in HK and PRC• Additional item and scale refinement• 24 personality scales and 12 clinical scales

STANDARDIZATION

• PRC Chinese scored higher on Face and Defensiveness

• HK Chinese scored higher on Practical- mindedness• Men scored higher on self-orientation, leadership,

optimism, logical mindedness, adventurousness, pathological dependence

• Women scored higher on emotionality, veraciousness, somatization, anxiety and inferiority

Factors

Higher Order Factors:• Dependability• Chinese Tradition/Interpersonal Relatedness• Social Potency• Individualism

Clinical Factors:• Emotional Problems• Behavioural Problems

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: DEPENDABILITY

F I F I

Emotionality -.74 Veraciousness .60

Responsibility .72 External LOC -.60

Practical mind .72 Face -.56

Inferiority -.69 Family Orient .56

Graciousness .67 Meticulousness .55

Optimism .62

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: CHINESE TRADITION

F II

Harmony .72

Ren Qin .71

Flexibility -.66

Modernization -.56

Thrift .52

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: SOCIAL POTENCY

F III

Introversion -.79

Leadership .72

Adventurousness .62

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: INDIVIDUALISM

F IV

Self Orientation .81

Logical Orientation .53

Defensiveness .45

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL SCALES

Emotional Problems

F I Behavioural Problems

F II

Depression .82 Hypomania .79

Anxiety .76 Antisocial behaviour .73

Physical symptoms .76 Need for attention .62

Inferiority .75 Pathological depend .61

Somatization .70 Paranoia .59

Distortion of reality .57

Sexual maladjustment .42

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• CPAI-2 with additional scales to measure openness

• Extension to English speakers and English version(Singaporean Chinese, Caucasian Americans, overseas Chinese)

• Translation to Japanese and Korean• Cross-cultural Personality Inventory

QUESTIONS

• What are the critical issues in choice of a personality assessment instrument for cross-cultural research?

• For diagnostic purposes in a “foreign” culture?

• How does the CPAI compare to the NEO-PI?