1. PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT ACROSS CULTURES Imported and Indigenous Instruments

2. LECTURE OUTLINE Background Key Issues in Using Imported Tests – Translation – Psychometric properties – Norms – Ethical issues – Gaps in culturally relevant assessments Widely used instruments

3. 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

4. BACKGROUND Objectives of personality assessment Test availability Indigenous or imported instruments?

5. KEY ISSUES IN USING IMPORTED TESTS

6. 1.Adequacy of translation and adaptation 2.Equivalence of translated and original instruments 3.Local research on reliability and validity 4.Standardization of the translated instrument 5.Use of original vs. local norms 6.Cross-cultural differences in test scores 7.Ethical standards and copyright issues in test use 8.Gaps in culturally-relevant constructs

7. TRANSLATION Back translation Equivalence of meaning Field testing

8. MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE Functional equivalence - S cales 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

9. 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

10. NORMS Local or imported norms? Research or assessment purposes? Relative or absolute judgments?

11. ETHICAL STANDARDS Translation versions Copyright

12. WIDELY USED TESTS Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

13. 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

14. GAPS IN ASSESSMENT Are important dimensions missing? Interpersonal Relationship factor in CPAI

15. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CPAI Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory: combined emic-etic approach Scales of importance to Chinese cultures Scales believed to be universal

16. 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

17. CHINESE DOMAINS Harmony Relationship Orientation (Ren Qin) Modernization Thrift Defensiveness (Ah Q mentality) Graciousness Veraciousness Face Family Orientation Somatization

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. Factors Higher Order Factors: Dependability Chinese Tradition/Interpersonal Relatedness Social Potency Individualism Clinical Factors: Emotional Problems Behavioural Problems

22. HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: DEPENDABILITY F I Emotionality -.74Veraciousness.60 Responsibility.72External LOC -.60 Practical mind.72Face -.56 Inferiority -.69Family Orient.56 Graciousness.67Meticulousness.55 Optimism.62

23. HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: CHINESE TRADITION F II Harmony.72 Ren Qin.71 Flexibility -.66 Modernization -.56 Thrift.52

24. HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: SOCIAL POTENCY F III Introversion-.79 Leadership.72 Adventurousness.62

25. HIGHER ORDER FACTOR STRUCTURE: INDIVIDUALISM F IV Self Orientation.81 Logical Orientation.53 Defensiveness.45

26. HIGHER ORDER FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL SCALES Emotional Problems F IBehavioural Problems F II Depression.82Hypomania.79 Anxiety.76Antisocial behaviour.73 Physical symptoms.76Need for attention.62 Inferiority.75Pathological depend.61 Somatization.70Paranoia.59 Distortion of reality.57 Sexual maladjustment.42

27. 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

28. 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?