Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Reliability and validity. Recent results of research investigating reliability and validity of the SCAS‐R are promising. Wilson et al. (2017) summarize the results from three different samples, demonstrating that the instrument has internal consistency reliability as well as construct, predictive, and incremental validity.

Generalizability. The phenomenon of intercultural adaptation has been shown to occur in virtually all cross‐cultural transitions and for all culture groups experiencing a new culture (Kim, 2001). The concept is therefore generalizable and the SCAS‐R, through the initial testing mentioned above, is also generalizable as an instrument for use across culture groups.

Conceptual foundation. Cultural intelligence is a multidimensional concept researched and developed by Earley and Ang (2003) and refined by Van Dyne et al. (2012). Its roots are in intelligence theory as posited by Sternberg and Detterman (1986). It is a culture‐general construct.

Cultural dimension(s) being measured: culture learning. The CQS measures culture in four aspects: (a) metacognitive, or strategy/assessing and analyzing intercultural experiences; (b) cognitive, or knowledge/understanding of culture as a concept that transcends specific national or ethnic traits; (c) motivation, or desire to interact with people of other cultures; and (d) behavior, or a person's ability to respond appropriately in different cultural contexts.

Reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analysis results show goodness of fit for the authors' theoretically based, 20‐item, four‐factor model (chi‐square = 381.28 [164 df]) and reliability tests for each factor were at least 0.77. Ang et al. (2007), Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2009), and Van Dyne et al. (2012) found that the instrument predicts a range of indicators in culture learning contexts.

Generalizability. As a culture‐general instrument, the CQS is designed to be used by people of different cultures. It has also been tested with participants from at least 12 countries. In 2012 researchers developed an Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale (E‐CQS; Van Dyne et al., 2012) to introduce 11 sub‐dimensions of these four factors. Initial analyses are promising but further psychometric testing remains to be done.

Cultural knowledge is a multifaceted concept and many assessment instruments are available that measure its different dimensions. For example, yet another of special note is the Culture Learning Strategies Inventory (Paige et al., 2006), an instrument that explicitly identifies strategies for learning culture. It meets the criteria for a sound assessment, but it is not as widely used or tested as the others. In this brief entry, the goal has been to provide a conceptual map of cultural knowledge, to identify a number of assessment instruments relevant to those categories, and, for illustrative purposes, to describe in greater detail four specific cultural knowledge assessment instruments. This introduction should serve as an introduction that readers can develop to gain a better understanding of cultural knowledge and its assessment.

The author expresses her gratitude to R. Michael Paige, PhD, the lead author on the 2012 version of this entry. He was an icon and visionary in the field of cultural knowledge, training, and learning. Dr. Paige passed away before the final publication of this revision. This entry is dedicated to him.

SEE ALSO:Intercultural Competence; Language and Identity; Teaching Culture and Intercultural Competence

1 Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Yee Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–71.

2 Bennett, J. (Ed.). (2015) The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3 Bennett, M. J. (1993). Beyond ethnorelativism: The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

4 Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–36.

5 Brown, S. D., Unger Hu, K. A., Mevi, A. A., Hedderson, M. M., Shan, J., Quesenberry, C. P., & Ferrara, A. (2014). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure‐Revised: Measurement invariance across racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 154–61.

6 Byram, M. S. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflection. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

7 Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L M. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 371–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8 Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9 Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: An analysis of individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

10 Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11 Hall, E. T. (1969). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

12 Hammer, M. R. (2008). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI): An approach for assessing and building intercultural competence. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding and utilizing cultural diversity to build successful organizations (pp. 203–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13 Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross‐cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474–87.

14 Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467–86.

15 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16 Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1999). The cross‐cultural adaptability inventory. In S. M. Fowler & M. G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross‐cultural training methods (Vol. 2, pp. 53–60). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

17 Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross‐cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18 Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

19 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20 Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

21 Landis, D., Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22 Lange, D. L., & Paige, R. M. (Eds.). (2003). Culture as the core: Perspectives in second language education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

23 Lussier, D. (2007). Theoretical bases of a conceptual framework with reference to intercultural communicative competence. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 309–32.

24 Moodian, M. A. (Ed.). (2008). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross‐cultural dynamics within organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.