The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle
predictive as well as construct validity, and (d) it is not correlated with standard background characteristics of age, gender, or ethnicity.
Generalizability. The IDI has cross‐cultural generalizability. The items were originally generated by a culturally diverse sample and the IDI was pilot tested with a culturally diverse group. It has been translated into 12 languages (using a rigorous back translation method).
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure‐Revised
Conceptual foundation. The MEIM‐R (Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Ong, 2007) is conceptualized around the multidimensional, social aspects of an individual's ethnic identity, including sense of belonging and affirmation, ethnic identity achievement, ethnic behaviors and practices, and orientation to other groups. Its theoretical base is Phinney's (1989) stages of ethnic identity development.
Cultural dimension being measured: cultural identity. The MEIM‐R measures “that part of an individual's self‐concept which derives from [his] knowledge of [his] membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, in Phinney & Ong, 2007, p. 271).
Reliability and validity. Research on the MEIM‐R (Phinney & Ong, 2007; Brown et al., 2014) has resulted in a six‐item measure that meets reliability (alpha > = .81) and validity standards. It is currently a two‐factor model, exploration of and commitment to one's ethnic identity.
Generalizability. The MEIM‐R is intended to be used (and has been tested with) ethnic minorities in the USA. Such minorities have included Latinx, Asian American, African American, European American (such as Armenian), and those of mixed heritage.
Table 1 Culture learning instruments and selection criteria
| Criteria | Instrument | |||
| Intercultural | Multigroup Ethnic | Sociocultural | Cultural | |
| Development | Identity | Adaptation | Intelligence Scale | |
| Inventory | Measure‐Revised | Scale‐Revised | ||
| Conceptual foundation | Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993) | Ethnic identity development (Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Ong, 2007) | Sociocultural adaptation (Ward & Kennedy, 1999) | Cultural intelligence (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986; Earley & Ang, 2003) |
| Cultural category | Intercultural development | Cultural identity | Cultural adjustment | Culture learning |
| Reliability and validity | + | + | + | + |
| Generalizability | Across culture and language groups | US ethnic minorities | Across culture groups | Across culture groups |
Note. + indicates instrument meets reliability and validity testing. See instrument description for details.
Sociocultural Adaptation Scale‐Revised
Conceptual foundation. The SCAS‐R is an 11‐item instrument designed to measure three domains of a bifactor model of sociocultural adaptation: social interaction, ecological adaptation (namely, migration for educational or work purposes), and community engagement (Ward & Kennedy, 1999; Wilson et al., 2017).
Cultural dimension(s) being measured: cultural adjustment. The SCAS‐R measures respondents' self‐reported behavioral cultural competency in a new cultural context. While it is not a measure of concrete culture‐specific knowledge, it does ask respondents to evaluate their level of competency about particular aspects of the specific culture.
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.
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)
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.
Conclusion
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