1. The Development and Initial Validation of the
Cross-Cultural Competence Inventory (3CI)
Carol A. Thornson1 , Barbara A. Fritzsche2 , Huy Le2 , Karol G. Ross1 , & Daniel P. McDonald3 2 2 2
Concerns that the military as a whole is not prepared to conduct operations in a way that understands other cultures has sparked a surge of research into areas related to cross-cultural competence. Instances of stereotyping, racism, and abuses of power by military members have showcased the ways in which the U.S. military might alienate the local populations. Additionally, there has been a shift in the military from a war-fighting mentality to one of peacekeeping and security. For these reasons, the Department of Defense has made the assessment and training of cross-cultural competence a top priority for the military today. To that end, a self- report measure was developed to support the Cultural Readiness efforts of the Department of Defense
Cross-Cultural Competence (3C)
The ability to interact effectively and appropriately with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself (Fantini, 1995) in order to achieve mission success.
Literature Review
Existing validated instruments to assess 3C were developed for civilians (e.g., expatriates, Peace Corps volunteers, students abroad):
The Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS; Matsumoto et al., 2001)
Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000)
Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE; Wang et al., 2003)
Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003)
Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI; Hammer et al., 2003)
Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI; Kelley & Meyers, 1995)
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS; Earley & Ang, 2003)
Due to differences between military and civilian domains, a mission-specific approach was taken as well.
Mission-Specific Performance
To examine 3C in military contexts, qualitative data were collected from nine higher-ranking enlisted Army soldiers and Army officers who had been deployed to countries outside the United States.
Several important performance criteria relevant to 3C were uncovered.
Abstract
Introduction
Data Collection 1:The 144-item 3CI was uploaded as a voluntary option to an electronic survey routinely administered to all branches of service across ranks and geographic locations (N = 792).
Construct Validation: Exploratory factor analysis and item analysis yielded six interpretable factors.
Data Collection 2: The 80-item 3CI was uploaded as above (N = 4,840).
Construct Validation: Confirmatory factor analysis of Sample 1 (N= 3,000) and Cross Validation of Sample 2 (N = 1,840) confirmed the six factor structure. 22 items were eliminated.
Data Collection 3: Data were collected from 72 West Point Military Academy cadets at two different points in time, Time 1 and Time 2.
Test-retest Reliability: Analysis is underway to assess the stability of the six dimensions over time.
Data Collection 4: Survey packets are currently being administered to military personnel who have recently returned from deployment. Ratings of their observed performance in the field are being collected from their supervisors.
Criterion validation: Shall be demonstrated by showing a relationship between the scores on the 3CI (predictor) and the supervisory ratings of 3C performance dimensions (criteria), by examining the zero-order correlations between each scale, and multiple linear regression will examine how well all the scales can predict the criteria when combined. The criterion validity of the 3CI will then be compared to those of other two popular measures of 3C (e.g., MPQ and CQ). The incremental validity of the 3CI over the other two self-report measures of 3C will be examined (via hierarchical multiple regression).
.Measures
Cross-Cultural Competence Inventory
The 3CI (Ross et al., 2009) is an 58-item instrument developed to measure the six hypothesized dimensions of 3C: (1) Cultural Adaptability; (2) Determination; (3) Tolerance of Uncertainty; (4) Self-Presentation ; (5) Mission-Focused; and (6) Engagement. A six-point Likert scale is used throughout the inventory, and participants rate the extent to which they (1): “strongly disagree” to (6): “strongly agree” with each statement.
Cultural Intelligence Scale
The CQS (Earley & Ang, 2003) is a 20-item self-report instrument, containing four subscales to measure the four dimensions of CQ: Metacognitive CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ. A selected response Likert-type format is used (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). Each of the four subscales is designed to assess one of the four dimensions of CQ (i.e., metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ).
The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire
The MPQ (van der Zee, & van Oudenhoven 2000) is a self-report, 91-item instrument, designed to assess: (1) Cultural Empathy; (2) Open-mindedness; (3) Social Initiative; (4) Emotional Stability; and (5) Flexibility. Respondents are asked, “To what extent do the following statements apply to you? (Please circle the answer that is most applicable to you)” and give their answers on a 5-point scale, ranging from not at all applicable [1] to totally applicable [5]. Several items are reverse-scored.
Demographic Data
A brief demographics form will also be included in the packet as to age, rank, gender, deployment history, and non-military experiences outside the US.
Method
Discussion
Results
The Cultural Adaptability factor is comprised of items originally designed to assess willingness to engage, self-efficacy, cross- cultural empathy, self-monitoring, openness, and cognitive flexibility.
The Determination factor seems to reflect someone who is determined and confident in his or her ability to reach goals, solve problems and arrive at solutions quickly.
The Tolerance of Uncertainty factor might be expected to predict those who would perform better in cross-cultural interactions that involve a higher level of ambiguity.
The Self-Presentation factor is made up of items originally designed to assess the ability to self-monitor.
The Mission-Focus factor indicates someone who is focused, rule-oriented, and a team player. This person is also likely to be high in conscientiousness.
The Engagement factor is made up of items indicating the willingness to engage with others, openness, and the ability to regulate one’s emotions.
Conclusions
The final 3CI consists of 58 items to assess the six hypothesized dimensions of 3C: (1) Cultural Adaptability; (2) Determination; (3) Tolerance of Uncertainty; (4) Self-Presentation; (5) Mission-Focus; and (6) Engagement. These interpretations are preliminary, pending criterion-related data collection and analyses to link these dimensions to important performance criteria.
Author Note
This work was supported by funding from the Research Directorate3 of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, (DEOMI) to support Cultural Readiness efforts of the Department of Defense. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this poster are those of the study authors and should not be construed as an official Department of Defense position, policy, or decision.