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

TRANSLATION Back translation Equivalence of meaning Field testing

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES Reliability –Internal consistency –Temporal stability Validity –Content –Construct convergent discriminant –Predictive

MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE Metric equivalence – Same psychometric properties such as internal consistency and factor structures Scalar equivalence – Scales used the same way, addresses issues such as acquiescence or response sets across cultures

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

ETHICAL STANDARDS Translation versions Copyright

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

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

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CPAI

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 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 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

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

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 F IF 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

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CPAI-2 with additional scales to measure openness Extension to English speakers (Singaporean Chinese, Caucasian Americans) 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?