تست اعتبار بین فرهنگی میانبر موجودی توسعه بین فرهنگی

Intercultural competence/sensitivity is increasingly recognized across the global spectrum of educational institutions, corporations, government agencies and non-government organizations as a central capability for the 21st century. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is an assessment tool that measures the level of intercultural competence/sensitivity across a developmental continuum for individuals, groups, and organizations and represents a theoretically grounded measure of this capability for perceiving cultural differences and commonalities and modifying behavior to cultural context. This study represents additional cross-cultural validity testing of the IDI, building on the previous work of Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, and DeJaeghere (2003) and Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003). The 50 items from IDI v2 were administered to 4763 individuals from 11 distinct, cross-cultural samples. Confirmatory factor analysis confirms the following basic orientations toward cultural difference originally explicated by Bennett, 1986 and Bennett, 1993 in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS): Denial, Defense, Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance, and Adaptation. In addition, it also identifies Cultural Disengagement as an additional scale within the IDI; but one that is not located along the developmental continuum. Second, the inter-scale correlations support the theoretically proposed, developmental formulation from Denial through Adaptation. Third, the current analysis offers strong support for an overall Developmental Orientation (DO) scale and an overall Perceived Orientation (PO) scale. Fourth, Minimization is found to be a transitional orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities, between the more monocultural (ethnocentric) orientations of Denial and Polarization (Defense, Reversal) and the more intercultural mindsets of Acceptance and Adaptation. Fifth, readability analysis indicates the IDI is appropriate for high (secondary) school students (age 15 or above) or individuals with a 10th grade reading level. Finally, criterion validity of the IDI was assessed. The results indicate that the IDI has strong predictive validity toward bottom-line goals within organizations; namely, the achievement of diversity and inclusion goals in the recruitment and staffing function. These findings complement previous results that demonstrated that the IDI also possesses strong content and construct validity across culture groups.

The educational sector—from K-12 through universities as well corporations, government agencies and non-government organizations are increasingly recognizing the need for building intercultural competence in order to better prepare individuals to function more effectively in our global community (Hammer, 1989, Hammer, 1999, Hammer, 2009 and Moodian, 2009). Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) posit that “people must be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures” in order to effectively bridge across cultural differences and commonalities (p. 416). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is an assessment tool that measures the level of intercultural competence/sensitivity across a developmental continuum for individuals, groups, and organizations and represents a theoretically grounded measure of this capability toward observing cultural differences and commonalities and modifying behavior to cultural context. The IDI is grounded in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) originally proposed by Bennett, 1986, Bennett, 1993 and Bennett, 2004. The purpose of this study is to further test the cross-cultural validity of the IDI. The IDI v1 was developed in 1998; IDI v2, based on continued research, was introduced in 2003; and IDI v3 is available for use in 2010 as a result of the research reported in this article. In its current version, the IDI v3 is a 50-item paper-and-pencil (and online) questionnaire, with selected demographic items. It has been back translated into multiple languages (Brislin, 1970, Brislin, 1976 and Brislin, 1980) with selected demographics. The IDI can be completed in about 15–20 min. Accompanying the IDI are five open-ended “contexting” questions individual respondents may complete. These open-ended questions help further capture the experiences around cultural differences of the respondent. Once the IDI is completed, the IDI analytic structure generates an individual (or group) graphic profile of the respondent's overall position on the intercultural development continuum (also produced is an Administrator's IDI profile report that presents the statistical information for the various IDI scales). The intercultural competence/sensitivity developmental continuum is presented in Fig. 1, and ranges from more monocultural orientations to more intercultural/global orientations. Full-size image (11 K) Fig. 1. Intercultural development continuum. Figure options Table 1 presents a summary of each of these orientations toward cultural commonalities and differences (see Bennett, 2004 and Hammer, 2009 for more information on these intercultural competence/sensitivity orientations). Table 1. Summary of IDI developmental continuum orientations. Denial An orientation that likely recognizes more observable cultural differences (e.g., food) but, may not notice deeper cultural differences (e.g., conflict resolution styles), and may avoid or withdraw from cultural differences. Polarization A judgmental orientation that views cultural differences in terms of “us” and “them”. This can take the form of: Defense An uncritical view toward one's own cultural values and practices and an overly critical view toward other cultural values and practices. Reversal An overly critical orientation toward one's own cultural values and practices and an uncritical view toward other cultural values and practices. Minimization An orientation that highlights cultural commonality and universal values and principles that may also mask deeper recognition and appreciation of cultural differences. Acceptance An orientation that recognizes and appreciates patterns of cultural difference and commonality in one's own and other cultures. Adaptation An orientation that is capable of shifting cultural perspective and changing behavior in culturally appropriate and authentic ways. Cultural Disengagement A sense of disconnection or detachment from a primary cultural group. Table options This continuum represents a movement toward greater intercultural competence/sensitivity, from a less complex set of perceptions and behaviors around cultural commonalities and differences (monocultural mindset orientations) to a more complex set of perceptions and behaviors (intercultural/global mindset) (Bennett, 2004 and Hammer, 2009). Perceiving cultural differences from one's own cultural perspective is indicative of a more monocultural mindset. In contrast, the capability of shifting cultural perspective and adapting behavior to cultural context represents an intercultural mindset. As previously mentioned, this continuum is grounded in Bennett, 1986, Bennett, 1993 and Bennett, 2004 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Based on the research conducted in developing and validating the IDI, the current intercultural competence/sensitivity continuum assessed by the IDI represents an adaptation from the original formulation of the DMIS in three main areas. First, in the DMIS model, a final stage of intercultural development is proposed and is labeled as Integration, a stage that is concerned with the construction of an intercultural identity. However, the earlier stages posited in the DMIS are directly related to the developing of intercultural competence/sensitivity and only indirectly related to the formation of cultural identity (Bennett, 2004 and Hammer, 2009). Because the IDI is a measure of the developmental continuum of intercultural competence/sensitivity and not a measure of identity development, it is appropriate to conceive of the developmental continuum as moving from Denial through Adaptation. Second, the IDI assesses Cultural Disengagement—the degree to which an individual or group is experiencing a sense of alienation from their own cultural community. This is a separate dimension based on the current research presented below and is conceptually located (and empirically verified) outside of the developmental continuum. This dimension was termed encapsulated marginality in IDI v2 based on DMIS conceptualization. However, the data presented in this study indicates that this scale is better conceptualized as a measure of Cultural Disengagement rather than as an indicator of encapsulated marginality (a form of Integration as hypothesized in the DMIS). Finally, Minimization in the original DMIS is viewed as an ethnocentric stage of development. However, the data presented below from the current research support the conclusion that Minimization is not ethnocentric in orientation toward cultural commonalities and differences. Rather, Minimization is conceived as a transitional orientation that is more effective around recognizing and responding to cultural commonalities but is challenged when complex cultural differences need to be adapted to through deeper understanding of the values and behavior patterns of the other cultural community.

A number of concluding observations arise from the additional validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI v3) presented in this article. First, the confirmatory factor analysis confirms the basic orientations toward cultural difference originally explicated by Bennett, 1986 and Bennett, 1993 in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Second, the inter-scale correlations support the theoretically proposed, developmental formulation from Denial through Adaptation, termed the intercultural competence continuum. Third, the current analyses offers strong support for the cross-cultural generalizability, validity and reliability of the IDI v3 measure, to include the individual sub-scales of Denial, Defense, Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance and Adaptation as well as the overall Developmental Orientation (DO) and overall Perceived Orientation (PO) scales. This additional testing has also suggested modifications to some of the DMIS orientation descriptions. First, this testing has resulted in a re-interpretation of what was initially termed, the Encapsulated Marginality (EM) scale. Encapsulated Marginality was initially conceived as one of two dimensions of the larger Orientation of Integration, which is theorized in the DMIS model, to represent the next developmental stage of intercultural competence beyond Adaptation. However, the results from this current study indicate that the correlations of this scale to the other scales were not in the theorized direction. This led to a re-interpretation of the EM scale and renaming it the Cultural Disengagement (CD) scale. This scale appears to be a more general measure of the disconnection one can experience from one's primary cultural community(ies). As such, this is not a measure of encapsulated marginality. Further, this construct and measure of Cultural Disengagement is viewed in the current research as neither a sub-dimension of Integration nor as an Orientation located along the Developmental Continuum (Denial through Adaptation). In addition, the original Integration items (Hammer et al., 2003) did not possess sufficient factor stability to produce a valid and reliable scale. In reviewing the DMIS conceptual formulations, it appears that Integration is primarily understood as a dimension of identity development. Yet the DMIS model is essentially a model of the development of intercultural competence/sensitivity; not a model of cultural/ethnic identity development. The research indirectly supports this distinction as the findings confirm a coherent, stable set of developmental orientations focused on intercultural competence/sensitivity. This research has not been able to confirm Integration (an identity orientation) within this developmental continuum. This is an area of further research. Second, Minimization is found to be a transitional orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities, between the more monocultural (ethnocentric) orientations of Denial and Polarization (Defense, Reversal) and the more intercultural mindsets of Acceptance and Adaptation. This suggests that Minimization may be more interculturally competent than originally characterized in the DMIS. Nevertheless, Minimization, consistent with the DMIS, is also not sufficiently capable of understanding as deeply as needed various patterns of cultural difference nor is it able to easily identify and implement cross-culturally adaptive behavior or solutions to complex intercultural problems. Third, IDI v3 results clearly posit Denial, Defense, Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance and Adaptation as the core concepts and scales arrayed along the developmental competence continuum (it also identifies Cultural Disengagement as an additional scale within the IDI; but one that is not located along the developmental continuum). Fourth, countering unsubstantiated claims by Bennett (2009), analysis from three distinct validation samples (cumulatively over 10,000 subjects) provides empirical evidence of the normal distribution of IDI DO scores, supporting the application of the IDI results to both individual and group profile analysis. Fifth, criterion validity testing from two additional studies reveals the predictive validity of IDI DO scores: (1) results indicate that the IDI has strong predictive validity toward bottom-line goals within organizations; namely, the achievement of diversity and inclusion goals in the recruitment and staffing function and (2) the IDI has predictive validity as tested within study abroad in terms of knowledge of host culture, intercultural anxiety, intercultural friendships, and post sojourn overall satisfaction with the study abroad experience. Sixth, readability analysis of the IDI supports the cognitive development recommendation that the IDI is appropriate for high (secondary) school students (age 15 or above) or individuals with a 10th grade reading level. Overall, these findings complement previous results demonstrating strong content and construct validity of the IDI across culture groups.