Cross-Cultural Adaptability 1 Running Head : Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory

The current study examined the factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) to better understand the psychometric properties of this instrument. Subsequent to the current study, the CCAI, which was developed to provide a selfinventory of an individual’s cultural adaptability, had limited study of its measurement characteristics. Therefore, the structure was examined using data collected from a group of university students. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated poor fit of the four-factor model proposed by the test authors. Follow-up exploratory factor analyses failed to reveal an interpretable structure. Possible explanations for poor fit are discussed and recommendations for further research are suggested. Cross-Cultural Adaptability 3 Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) was developed to provide a tool for self-assessment of cross-cultural effectiveness. This instrument, which was originally created in 1987, was revised in both 1989 and 1992. The instrument’s authors, Colleen Kelley and Judith Meyers, created both the original and the revised versions of the instrument. Designed to be used as a single assessment or as part of a multiassessment training program, the CCAI was developed in response to the need for a selfassessment instrument designed to measure cross-cultural adaptability (Kelley & Meyers, 1999). The authors stated that this instrument is applicable to all cultures assuming that anyone who was adapting to a new culture would share the same types of feelings and experiences (Kelley & Meyers, 1995a). The manual for the CCAI (Kelley & Meyers, 1995a) presents a limited description of the history of the development of the instrument. Specifically, after a review of the literature, the authors created a Cross-Cultural Readiness checklist of the characteristics cited in the literature as being important for cross-cultural adaptability. A panel of experts then rated the significance of each characteristic on the checklist in respect to adapting to other cultures. The characteristics with the highest ratings were then grouped into four categories (flexibility/openness, emotional resilience, perceptual acuity, and personal autonomy). Based on information from the cross-cultural adaptability literature, the authors then added a fifth category (positive regard for others). Ten items were then written to represent each of the five categories. Using cross-cultural experts and members of the general public, feedback pertaining to the CCAI items was gathered and used to make revisions. This version of the instrument (1987) was administered to obtain norming data. The normative sample consisted of 653 individuals with a variety of different occupations, levels of education, and age groups. The sample was approximately 63% male and 80% of the participants were citizens of the United States with the other 20% representing other countries from around the world. Detailed statistics about the normative sample are presented in the manual for the CCAI (Kelley & Meyers, 1995a). Using the results from this administration, the items previously representing the category Positive Regard for Others were reassigned to the remaining four categories creating the 1989 version of the instrument. The authors then state that in 1991 “new and more sophisticated tests were run” (p.11) and more items were transferred from one subscale to another to create the current version of the CCAI. Given the description of this process in the manual, it is assumed that the same dataset was analyzed for each revision. No cross-validation studies were presented. Limited information regarding the psychometric properties of the CCAI, presumably based on the norming sample data, is presented in the manual. The reliability of the subscale scores from the current version of the instrument ranged from .68 to .90 indicating moderate to high internal consistency. However, limited validity evidence is presented in the manual. Specifically, the development of the CCAI (e.g., use of experts, review of the literature) is presented as content validity evidence. The authors then present a principal components analysis of the items suggesting that the structure weights provide strong construct validity evidence. However, it must be noted that several of the items representing each subscale appeared to be functioning poorly, as they either had Cross-Cultural Adaptability 4 low correlations with the factor they correspond to or high correlations with other factors. In addition, and most importantly, at two points during the development process items that were created to represent one subscale were subsequently reassigned to another subscale. Again, no cross-validation studies supporting these changes were presented. The authors fail to address any of these problems (i.e. cross loadings, reassignment of items, lack of cross-validation) in the manual. In our opinion, this limited and weak validity evidence offers little support pertaining to the development of a measure that represents these constructs. After a review of the literature, only one additional study could be found that examined the structure of the CCAI. However, instead of examining the original fourfactor structure, a 3-factor structure using only 37 of the 50 items was explored using a sample of expatriates (Gelles, 1996). Because the analysis did not examine the proposed four-factor structure or use the entire set of items, it remains unclear if the original dimensionality of the instrument, as stated by Kelley and Meyers (1995a) is actually supported by empirical evidence. Purpose of the current study The CCAI has been used to examine the relationship between cross-cultural adaptability and intercultural experiences such as travel or study abroad programs (Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Kitsantas & Meyers, 2001). In addition, the CCAI has been used to determine the strength of hypothesized predictor variables of cross-cultural adaptability such as impression management (Montagliani & Giacalone, 1998) and general personality characteristics (e.g. temperament, problem-solving abilities; Lui, 1999). Predominately, research with the CCAI has focused on measuring the effectiveness of cultural training programs with law enforcement officers (Cornett-DeVito & McGlone, 2000), teachers (Remmert, 1993), business professionals (Goldstein & Smith, 1999), graduate students (Fukasawa, 1990) and medical professionals (Majumdar, Keystone & Cuttress, 1999). With the importance of accountability today in regard to educational programs, including study abroad programs, practitioners need quality instruments that can assess the success or development of participants in their programs. To ensure the quality of the instruments being used, appropriate validity evidence must be gathered. Despite the numerous studies that have used the CCAI to examine the crosscultural adaptability of various populations, no studies could be found that clearly established the hypothesized four-factor structure. As noted above, the evidence presented in the manual is not sufficient to claim that the CCAI is psychometrically stable or has any construct validity evidence. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the characteristics of this instrument, in particular the replicability of the fourfactor structure. Method Participants The participants for this study consisted of a random sample of 725 sophomores from a mid-sized, mid-Atlantic university. The participants were administered the CCAI along with several examinations as part of the University’s Assessment program. A total of 709 students completed the CCAI and had the following characteristics: 57% female, 83% Caucasian, 4% African American, 4% Asian, 1% Hispanic, 1% Native American (7% ethnicity not available), average age of 20. Cross-Cultural Adaptability 5 Procedure Students were assigned to classrooms on the designated assessment day and spent approximately 2.5 hours completing assessments in various subject areas. The CCAI was administered when student had completed approximately half of their assessments. Trained proctors administered the instruments. Specifically, the proctors distributed the instruments and read instructions aloud before the students began responding. Students were instructed to read each statement carefully and choose the response that best described them at that point in time. They were allowed 30 minutes to complete the 50 items of the CCAI. Instruments The current version of the CCAI, which was administered for this study, consists of 50 items (Kelley & Meyers, 1995b). Examinees are asked to respond to each item using a scale from 1 (definitely true) to 6 (definitely not true). To compute the four subscale scores, nine of the 50 items on the CCAI have to be reverse coded. A high score on a particular subscale indicates a high level of that attribute. In addition to conducting group comparisons using the subscale scores, the authors note that the four subscale scores can be compared for each person. This type of comparison allows assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses and can indicate areas where improvements are needed. As noted above, the authors proposed that cross-cultural adaptability has four dimensions. The first construct, emotional resilience, is represented by a subscale consisting of 18 items. When individuals find themselves in a new culture they often experience negative emotional reactions to their situation. Therefore, an important component to being able to adapt to a new environment is the ability to deal with these emotions and still maintain a positive outlook on one’s situation, in other words, to have emotional resilience. The second subscale was created to reflect flexibility and openness. One of the most common components of cross-cultural adaptability is an individual’s capability to posses a non-