Cultural intelligence (CQ) is “an individual’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Early & Ang, 2003, p. 59). To measure CQ the Cultural Research Group at Florida Tech University have used a multidimensional scale with four specific components which they use as the initial indicators of CQ: Cognitive CQ, Meta-Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ. The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) was developed by Ang, (Ang et al, In Press) to assess CQ. The content validity of this model has serious problems as there are many important indicators of Cultural Knowledge missing. The missing elements impair the ability of the test to accurately measure cultural knowledge. Some indicators which we believe are missing include time perception and eating behavior and traditional foods. Also it is much more useful to combine the indicator “Language” together with the indicator for “non verbal displays” because separating the variables loses important areas like greetings and verbal communication displays that may not exactly fall under language or non-verbal displays. Thus we suggest an indicator for verbal and non verbal communication as this includes both language and non verbal displays but also provides for questions about greetings and colloquial speech. Lastly we also suggest that the indicator “Arts and Crafts” should be replaced with the indicator Arts which would cover cultural areas such as music, theater, and artwork that were previously left out by the original construct. After fixing the problems of content validity in our questionnaire it is apparent this questionnaire is extremely adaptable to other cultures. All items on the questionnaire should be etic as they are assessing knowledge that anyone could know. Thus for applying the construct to German culture it was unnecessary to change the construct at all. All indicators are relevant and would be understood by Germans. Therefore for German culture the construct (when corrected for content validity) is again the latent construct of Cognitive CQ with the indicators Legal and Economic Systems, Verbal and Non-verbal Communication Rules, Religion and Values, Marriage Systems, Arts, Geography, Time Perception, and Eating Behavior and Traditional Foods. Thus it is unnecessary to redraw the measurement model. Also as all aspects of this survey are etic there is no change in the items from one culture to another.
Table of Contents
ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTRUCT
REVISION OF ORIGINAL ITEMS AND ADAPTATION FOR USE IN GERMAN
VALIDATING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Research Objectives and Topics
The primary goal of this research is to evaluate and refine the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) by addressing content validity issues and adapting the questionnaire for use in the German cultural context. The study focuses on verifying if the instrument effectively measures factual cultural knowledge across different demographics.
- Assessment of the latent construct of Cognitive Cultural Intelligence (CQ).
- Identification and mitigation of content validity flaws in the original questionnaire.
- Systematic linguistic and conceptual adaptation of questionnaire items for German speakers.
- Development of a validation framework using convergent and divergent validity testing.
- Implementation of strategies to detect response bias and ensure data integrity.
Excerpt from the Book
ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTRUCT
Cultural intelligence (CQ) is “an individual’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Early & Ang, 2003, p. 59). To measure CQ the Cultural Research Group at Florida Tech University have used a multidimensional scale with four specific components which they use as the initial indicators of CQ: Cognitive CQ, Meta-Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ. The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) was developed by Ang, (Ang et al, In Press) to assess CQ. Van Driel et al (van Driel et al., 2008) attempt to challenge the validity of Ang’s construct of the CQS. In the Cultural Knowledge test van Driel et al focus on Cognitive CQ so it is part of their latent construct just for this test. Van Driel et al take Ang’s assumption that cognitive CQ is any information that can be learned from other cultures inside or outside a classroom. Unlike Ang however, Van Driel et al develop their own indicators for Cultural Knowledge or Cognitive CQ which include: Legal and Economic Systems, Languages, Religion and Values, Marriage Systems, Arts and Crafts, Non-Verbal Display Rules, and Geography. This is a multidimensional scale as persons may know much about one of the indicators through previous study but little to none about other indicators (van Driel et al., 2008). From these indicators they created specific questions which are deemed to convey Cultural Knowledge.
The content validity of this model has serious problems as there are many important indicators of Cultural Knowledge missing. The missing elements impair the ability of the test to accurately measure cultural knowledge. Some indicators which we believe are missing include time perception and eating behavior and traditional foods. Also it is much more useful to combine the indicator “Language” together with the indicator for “non verbal displays” because separating the variables loses important areas like greetings and verbal communication displays that may not exactly fall under language or non-verbal displays.
Summary of Chapters
ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTRUCT: This section establishes the theoretical basis for Cognitive Cultural Intelligence and critically analyzes the shortcomings in the content validity of the original Cultural Intelligence Scale.
REVISION OF ORIGINAL ITEMS AND ADAPTATION FOR USE IN GERMAN: This section details the process of modifying questionnaire items to ensure clarity and cultural equivalence, including the challenges of back-translation and linguistic nuances between English and German.
VALIDATING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: This section proposes a comprehensive study to test the instrument's convergent and divergent validity, ensuring that the tool accurately measures cultural knowledge across diverse educational backgrounds.
Keywords
Cultural Intelligence, CQ, Cognitive CQ, Cultural Knowledge Test, Content Validity, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Questionnaire Design, Back-Translation, Construct Validity, Convergent Validity, Divergent Validity, Cultural Awareness, Response Bias, German Culture, Measurement Instrument.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper primarily investigates the content validity of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), specifically focusing on the cognitive domain of cultural intelligence and the adaptation of this instrument for the German-speaking population.
What are the central thematic fields covered in the work?
The work covers theoretical constructs of cultural intelligence, cross-cultural survey methodology, linguistic adaptation, and the empirical validation of standardized testing instruments.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to refine the existing Cultural Knowledge Test to ensure it is robust, linguistically accurate for German subjects, and capable of measuring specific factual cultural knowledge without social desirability bias.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The study employs a structural analysis of the latent construct, critical evaluation of questionnaire items against established criteria (Brislin, 1986), systematic back-translation, and a proposed quantitative validation study involving 500 subjects.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body addresses the critique of the original construct, the revision of specific items to improve phrasing and grammar, the challenges of translating culturally specific concepts, and the framework for future validation.
How is the success of this adaptation characterized?
The success is characterized by the instrument's ability to remain "etic"—assessing knowledge accessible to any individual regardless of origin—and its successful translation into German while maintaining structural and conceptual integrity.
Why was it necessary to add questions regarding "Time Perception" and "Eating Behavior"?
These indicators were added because the original construct was deemed to have serious flaws in content validity, as it omitted significant areas of cultural knowledge that are essential for a comprehensive assessment.
How does the paper handle the issue of response bias?
The paper acknowledges the risk that respondents might use outside sources and includes a specific "outlier" question at the end of the survey to detect invalid data and ensure honesty in the reporting process.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2008, Cultural Knowledge Test Adaptation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/175338
