Rationale for the Current Research
STUDY 1: Testing the Proposed Theoretical Model of Acculturation - A Quantitative Inquiry
5.3 Method
5.3.1 Measurement instrument
questions to cognitive CQ (α =.84), five questions each relating to motivational CQ (α = .76) and behavioral CQ (α = .83). Further support for internal consistency was provided by Ward et al. (2009) reporting strong reliability coefficient for overall CQ (α = 0.93) and each factors of CQ ranging from 0.70 to 0.86. Authors of the scale also provided evidence for predictive validity of CQ relating it to cultural judgment and cross cultural adaptation across samples. Khan and Hasan (2016) provided convergent and discriminant validity evidence on a within country migrated Indian student sample with composite reliability score higher than 0.7 for all the dimensions.
Additionally, evidence for generalizability of scores across samples was provided for different groups like undergraduate students from different countries, foreign professionals, organizational workers, expatriate managers and leaders, several work groups like U.S. real estate agents, Pilipino laborers, military leaders, each with a reported α of over 0.70 (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). Furthermore, Van Dyne et al.
(2008, Study 3) provided evidence for temporal reliability of the scale (metacognitive = 0.78, cognitive = 0.81, motivational = 0.80 and behavioral = 0.81).
2. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure - Revised (MEIM - R): This 6 item Likert scale was developed by Phinney and Ong (2007). It is a revised and shortened version of the earlier 15 item scale by the same name developed by Phinney (1992) to be used with diverse groups. The MEIM-R consists of two subscales, which are, ‘Exploration’ of the group identity and ‘Commitment’ to the group. The score has to be calculated as the mean of items in each subscale or of the scale as a whole. Authors of the scale provided evidence for the stability of the two factors of MEIM-R reporting comparative fit index of 0.98 compared to other hypothesized models. Also, reliability evidence was provided with reported α = .76 for exploration; .78 for commitment and .81 for the overall scale.
Unlike most other scales of socio-ethnic identity which are designed for use with
specific groups only like the African or Asian Americans; this scale can be administered to any group. In this study, this scale was used to measure the identification to ethnic group, as well as, to measure their identification to the national (Indian) group.
Following are examples of some scale items altered to be used in this study. Item 1: I have a strong sense of belonging to
A. my ethnic group from my home state in northeast India B. my national group of India as a whole
A. my ethnic group membership means to me
B. my national (Indian) group membership means to me
Response was collected on a Likert scale where participants indicated identification to both ethnic group, as well as, national group. Both these identities are independent aspects of social identity (Phinney, 2001) which means having a stronger identity for one group does not diminish the identity for the other (Phinney, 2003). Therefore, two separate scores were obtained representing the social identity, that is, one for ethnic identity and the other for national identity.
3. Acculturation Strategy of Immigrant Adolescents from Mainland China to Hong Kong Scale (AS-C-HK): This 7 item Likert scale was developed by Chan (2001). It is based on Berry’s conceptual model of four strategies of acculturation, that is, integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. In the present study this scale was applied as it evaluated within nation acculturation, that is, contact between two different cultural groups of the same country. Items of the scale portray certain hypothesized culture specific situations related to issues like language, lifestyle in new cultural environment, self identity, appearance, acceptance of opinion, and decision
making. Under each item four different options represent the preference for each acculturation strategy. The total sum of scores for each option representing the different acculturation strategies under every item provide a separate score for each strategy.
Wording of the options of items were slightly altered to fit the context of the present study as indicated in the following example:
Original options
Although I am living in Hong Kong, I try to keep my old life style.
Hong Kong people have their unique style of living. I will not force myself to follow, but I will consider it as a reference for my living.
Altered options
Although I am living in this city, I try to keep my old life style of my home state.
People in this city have their unique style of living. I will not force myself to follow their lifestyles, but I will consider it as a reference for my living.
Author of the scale provided internal reliability evidence with reported α = .77, .67, .49 and .79, respectively for items of integration, assimilation, separation and marginalization. Additional reliability evidence on an adult sample aged 18 to 29 years was provided by Lian and Tsang (2010) reporting α = .72 on a within nation acculturation context similar to this study.
4. Cross-cultural Adjustment Scale (CAS): This scale was used to assess sociocultural adaptation. The original scale is a 14 item Likert scale developed by Black and Stevens (1989) which assessed three facets of adjustment to a new culture: general, interaction and work adjustment. However, in the present study only two facets, that is, general and interaction adjustment were assessed. It was done since the items of work adjustment wound not be applicable to the student participants of the sample. Therefore, only 11 of the 14 items were utilized for this study. Reliability evidence was provided by authors
with α = .86 for general adjustment and α = .96 for interaction adjustment. Several researchers provided acceptable α values ranging from .74 to .88 for general, and .85 to .92 for interaction adjustment (Kraimer, 1999).
5. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): This 5 item Likert scale was developed by Diener et al. (1985) to measure global life satisfaction which is an important component of subjective well-being. The life satisfaction measure was used in order to assess psychological adaptation. Items of the original scale were slightly altered to evaluate satisfaction with life in the city of current residence of the participants. Following is an example of an item used in this study: ‘In most ways my life in this city is close to my ideal.’
Authors of the scale reported good psychometric properties reporting inter item correlations ranging from .57 to .75 for each item of the scale. Furthermore, Diener et al. (1985) also reported moderately strong correlations between scores of SWLS and other measures of subjective wellbeing, like Cantril's (1968) Self-Anchoring Ladder (r
= .66), Andrews and Withey's (1976) D-T scale (r = .68), Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers' (1976) semantic differential-like scale (r = .75). Life-satisfaction is the cognitive-judgmental aspect of wellbeing (Diener et al., 1985). Therefore, in this study SWLS was used as a reflector of subjective wellbeing which is widely utilized as a measure of psychological adaptation (Williams, 2008; Forster, 2000).
6. Revised Body Esteem Scale (BES-R): This is a 23 item Likert scale developed by Mendelson et al. (2001) is based on the multidimensional concept of body image. It consists of three subscales, that is, appearance (feelings about one’s own appearance), attribution (perceptions about other’s evaluations of one’s own body and appearance), and weight (satisfaction with weight). Authors reported good internal consistency of
each subscale with reported α = .92 for appearance, α = .81 for attributions and α = .94 for aeight. Authors also provided measure of temporal stability with reported r = .89 for appearance, .83 for attribution, and .92 for weight aspect. The total measure of scores of the subscales provides a global body image index.