Cultural Factors in Personality Assessment

10
Diversity and Assessment
Joyce P. Chu, Brian A. Maruyama, Ashley Elefant,
and Bruce Bongar
Palo Alto University, California, USA
Background and History of Multicultural
Personality Assessment
Multicultural research in psychology has increased dramatically
in recent years, with
growing evidence that cultural factors impact many aspects of
psychology including
symptom presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and assessment
(Dana, 2000; Church,
2001; Leong, Leung, & Cheung, 2010). Within this cultural
research, studies on
culturally competent assessment have been less developed than
other areas such as
diagnosis and treatment (Dana, 2000). It has been recognized
for some time that
standard personality assessments carry some cultural bias and
are affected by cultural
influence. Yet, only recently has research begun to examine
systematically the effects
of culture to incorporate culturally competent assessment into
standard personality
assessment (Dana, 2000; Flaugher, 1978).
The need for culturally competent psychological and personality

assessment is
evident when examining the changing demographics of the
United States. In 2010,
36.3% of the US population identified as part of an ethnic
minority group (Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a), and this percentage
is expected to
grow significantly in the coming years. The Latino population
alone, for example, is
estimated to comprise 31% of the US population by 2060
(Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, 20146). These changing demographics
demonstrate the
clear importance of developing culturally competent personality
assessments.
Historically, culture has been neglected in the development of
personality assess-
ments (Dana, 2000; Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999; Laher, 2007).
One key example
of this lack of integration of culture into personality assessment
is evident with the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The
MMPI was first intro-
duced in the 1940s by Hathaway and McKinley to evaluate
personality, and it quickly
became one of the most used clinical instruments for the
assessment of personality
(Butcher, 2004; Hall et al., 1999; Hill, Pace, & Robbins, 2010).
However, this
measure used a standardization sample that did not include
ethnic minorities, and
The Wiley Handbook ofPersonality Assessment, First Edition.
Edited by Updesh Kumar.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd.
135 Diversity and Assessment
was criticized by many researchers for being racially biased
(Butcher, 2005; Dana,
2000; Pritchard & Rosenblatt, 1980). Subsequently, the
instrument was redeveloped
in 1989 (the MMPI-2) with the goals ofrevising test items that
may have contained
racial bias, and restandardizing population norms of the testing
instrument to be
more representative of ethnic minorities in the population (Hall
et al., 1999). The
MMPI -2 was also translated into several different languages,
such as Spanish and
Chinese (Butcher, 2004, 2005). These attempts to make the
MMPI-2 more cultur-
ally appropriate represented important advances with regards to
the development
of culturally competent personality assessments.
Although multicultural personality assessment has witnessed
important improve-
ments over the past several decades, its development is still
nascent with several
challenges to the creation of reliable and valid personality
assessments for diverse
populations (Church, 2001; Dana, 2000). One source of these
difficulties lies in a lack
of diversity and assessment research, with limited generativity
and dissemination.
Second, the cultural assessment literature has been marked by a
constricted focus on

culturally adjusted norms and language translation as a means
of developing cultur-
ally competent multicultural personality assessments. Although
culturally adjusted
norms and language translation represent an important part of
the process, this
narrow focus ignores other important cultural factors related to
administration,
interpretation, and validity of personality assessment
instruments (Dana, 2000;
Leong et al., 2010). Finally, there has been little theoretical
guidance about the main
ways or domains in which culture can affect assessment, and
how assessment instru -
ments should be developed, administered, and interpreted to
account for such
domains of cultural influence.
The purpose of this chapter is to conduct a literature review of
current research
on multicultural personality assessment, to establish the five
main domains or ways
in which culture informs assessment. Together, these domains
constitute a solid
foundation for culturally competent assessment to guide future
advances in the
research and practice of personality assessment with diverse
populations. These five
domains of culturally competent assessment include: ( 1) a need
for differential
norms that represent diverse populations; (2) assessment tools
should represent
culturally valid representations of the construct; (3) assessment
scales should be
constructed and interpreted to account for cultural idioms of
distress and reporting

style; ( 4) consideration of the cultural and technical context of
the testing process;
and (5) assessment feedback should be modified to account for
culturally informed
responses and expectations.
Differential Norms
Differential norms can play an important role in the
interpretation of personality
assessment results. Normative data provide a wealth of
information by allowing
researchers to compare an individual's raw scores to a
population of similar individ-
uals. Raw scores for assessment measures derive their meaning
from standardization
or normative samples with which they are developed and tested
(Geisinger, 1994).
136 Joyce P. Chu et al.
Without a sufficient degree of congruence between the
standardization sample and
the individual being tested, raw scores become meaningless.
Thus, when using an
assessment measure on a particular population, it is important to
ensure the measure
was normed on a population similar to that being tested.
Church (2001) described sample bias as occurring when
normative samples of an
assessment tool do not match respondent characteristics. These
characteristics can
include a range of cultural identities such as region of origin,

ethnicity, language, and
sexual orientation. Yet many factors and characteristics are
involved in ensuring an
adequate match between the test subject and the normative
sample. With numbers of
diverse groups in the US growing rapidly, it is critical for
psychologists to appreciate
the complex nature of culture. It is unfeasible to assume that
two individuals from the
same ethnic background will adhere to the same cultural
standards, as differences
within cultural groups are often greater than differences
between cultural groups.
Acculturation has received particular research attention as a
demographic char-
acteristic that can affect outcomes of personality assessment
and the validity of
assessment norms (Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Research suggests
that acculturation
can affect basic personality characteristics such as extraversion,
emotional stability,
social desirability, or acquiescence ( e.g., Grimm & Church,
1999; Ward & Kennedy,
1993). Thus, while many researchers simply gloss over issues of
acculturation in
assessment, Vijver and Phalet (2004) assert that the concurrent
use of an accultur-
ation measure can strengthen the validity of multicultural
assessment through the
use of differential cutoff scores, criterion data, or even
statistical manipulation.
Using acculturation scores as a covariate in regression models
may also help to
account for the role of acculturation in multicultural personality
assessment (Vijver &

Phalet, 2004). The use of acculturative information could prove
invaluable in
providing culturally competent personality assessment services.
When it is determined that the target population differs from the
normative
sample in critical areas or demographic characteristics (whether
due to acculturation,
age, gender, education, or others), a different set of norms may
be necessary before
the assessment results can be interpreted meaningfully. Indeed,
research has high-
lighted the need for different norms with numerous well-known
personality
assessment measures. For example, on the MMPI, some cultural
minority groups
consistently demonstrate elevated scores on scales 2, 8, and 9
relative to the norma-
tive sample, indicative of the need for shifted norms rather than
true elevations in
pathology (Butcher, 1996). Because of notable differences
between adolescent and
adult populations, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) -
Adolescent was developed specifically for use with adolescent
populations ( Geisinger,
1994). The TEMAS version ofthe Tell-Me-A-Story projective
personality assessment
was developed as a specialized Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) for urban minority
children (Constantino & Malgady, 2000). The developers found
that tailoring
the TEMAS to situations applicable to the target population
yielded more accurate
and significant results. More accurate results, however, does not
imply that cultural

differences were fully accounted for. Ambiguity and
inconsistent interpretations of
projective tests of personality make it difficult to discern the
appropriateness of these
tests for use with diverse populations.
Several challenges inherent to the creation of differential norms
preclude its
role as a universal or comprehensive solution to the need for
culturally competent
personality assessment. First, the empirical task of creating
separate norms for differ-
ent cultural identity groups can be a time-consuming and
resource-heavy endeavor.
Financial and practical constraints make it unlikely that
specialized norms or versions
of test instruments can be developed for multitudes of cultural
subgroups. Second,
because within-group variability is often greater than between-
group variability,
differential norms often represent an oversimplified solution
inapplicable to the
various response styles present within any one cultural group.
Finally, norms based
on a small subset of demographic characteristics become
untenable as mixed race
and multiple intersecting identities become increasingly
common ( e.g., which gender,
age, or ethnic norms would one choose for a 68-year-old
African-American trans-
gender individual?). Despite these challenges, creation of
differential norms has

provided important advancements in accounting for cultural
variations in assessment
responses across diverse groups.
Cultural Validity of the Construct
Cultural variations in personality construct validity
A second domain in which culture affects personality
assessment relates to construct
validity - whether the assessment actually measures what it is
supposed to measure
(Geisinger, 1994). Construct bias is a term used to describe
incongruence in con-
ceptualization of a construct between cultural groups (Vijver &
Phalet, 2004).
A similar term, conceptual equivalence, refers to whether or not
a construct assessed
by an assessment instrument has the same meaning in different
cultures (Dana, 2000;
Leong et al., 2010).
Indeed, research suggests that validity of personality constructs
can be inconsis-
tent depending on one's cultural identity or group membership.
For example,
assessing personality based on trait-level differences may not be
ideal in cross-
cultural assessment, as collectivist cultures tend to be less
familiar with Western
practices of introspection and self-assessment (Church, 2001).
These essential
differences can lead to a host of issues that may serve to
invalidate the results of
personality assessments. When assessing an individual from a
collectivist background,

measures may require adaptations in wording to reflect a more
relationally oriented
version of personality, since individuals from collectivist
cultures are more likely to
act based on social roles rather than individual trait
characteristics ( Church, 2001).
For example, in Western cultures, an individual may attribute
his or her actions of
caring for elderly parents to personality constructs such as
conscientiousness,
whereas in collectivist cultures, caring for one's elderly parents
is an expected social
role for children.
The most popular and well-researched model of personality -
the extroversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and
neuroticism factors of
the Five-Factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987) -
has itself been
questioned for its validity across cultures. Factor analysis
research comparing Western
measures of personality with measurements in non-Western
cultures has revealed
a potential sixth personality factor, interpersonal relatedness,
suggesting that the-
ories of personality may not be equally applicable or stable
across cultures ( Cheung,
Cheung, Leung, Ward & Leong, 2003 ). Additionally,
personality may be mercurial
in nature, changing across the life span as a function of life

experience.
A need for measures that assess culturally valid
representations of personality constructs
Given the culturally variant nature of personality constructs,
assessment tools should
be evaluated and/or modified to ensure that they embody
culturally valid representa-
tions of the constructs they assess. As establishing conceptual
equivalence has proven
to be a complex task, researchers have proffered different ways
to evaluate con-
struct validity in assessment. Factor analysis has commonly
been used to ensure
construct validity across cultures (Church, 2001). Factor-
analytic techniques allow
researchers to not only assess the validity of constructs between
differing cultural
groups, but also provide information on how some constructs
may present differently
in other cultures by looking at specific factor loadings (
Geisinger, 1994). Alternatively,
Geisinger ( 1994) suggested the use of an editorial board to
assess and make necessary
changes to establish conceptual equivalence.
Several personality assessment tools have been criticized for
potential difficulties
with conceptual non-equivalence. Projective measures of
personality like the
Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) have
been discussed as being
based in culturally insensitive interpretations of personality.
Although versions of
these widely used projective tests have been standardized and

normed with various
cultures, it remains uncertain whether the Western
psychoanalytic theories that
the TAT and Rorschach are based on can apply to other cultures
(Church, 2001).
Geisinger ( 1994) observed that a personality assessment, such
as the MMPI-A, that
asks questions about going to a school dance or the movies may
not make any sense
to someone from a developing country. Although these
questions may represent
one construct in the US, this construct may not be the same
across all cultures, and
adaptations must be made to accurately examine conceptual
equivalence.
In some cases when constructs are determined to be strongly
culturally variant,
entirely new "indigenous" measures have been created to fit the
cultural needs of
a population. Pursuant to a factor analysis showing a non-
Western personality
factor of interpersonal relatedness, the Cross-Cultural
Personality Inventory-2
(CPAI-2) was developed indigenously for use in non-Western
cultures (Cheung
et al., 2003). With increasing diversity across the globe,
however, there are practical
limitations to developing indigenous or specific measures of
personality that will
apply to every cultural group. The growing number
ofindividuals with intersecting
identities confers additional challenges; straddling multiple
cultural identities can
lead to a variety of presentations that would require
increasingly specialized levels

of analysis. As a compromise, researchers in cross-cultural
personality assessment have
begun to find utility in integrating both universally endorsed
personality constructs
and culture-specific personality constructs to develop a more
encompassing
personality assessment for diverse groups (Leong et al., 2010).
Cultural Idioms of Distress and Reporting
and Response Style
The third domain of intersection of culture with personality
assessment states that
assessment scales should be constructed and interpreted to
account for cultural
idioms of distress and reporting and response style. Idioms of
distress refer to the
various ways in which members of different cultural groups
express distress and
psychological symptoms (Nichter, 1981). These idioms of
distress affect how people
from cultural groups present their symptoms, what symptoms
people feel, and how
they report these symptoms to mental healthcare providers.
For example, individuals from non-Western cultures are more
likely to experience
mental health problems somatically rather than psychologically
(Mak & Zane, 2004;
Ryder et al., 2008 ). This idiom of distress can be seen
throughout non-Western cul-

tures, but is particularly salient for those from traditional Asian
cultures. Assessment
instruments have been modified to incorporate these cultural
idioms of distress;
somatic symptoms are added as one of three main factors
screened in the Vietnamese
Depression Scale (VDS; Dinh, Yamada, & Yee, 2009). An
understanding of idioms
of distress and the successful incorporation of these cultural
differences into
psychological tests is crucial for culturally competent
assessment.
When considering the development ofculturally competent
personality assessment,
cultural variations in reporting style should also be taken into
consideration (Laher,
2007). Reporting style refers to how an individual reports his or
her symptoms and
how much an individual reports ( e.g., over- or under-reporting)
(Heiervang,
Goodman, & Goodman, 2008), and response style refers to the
way an individual
responds to survey questions regardless of the content of the
questions (Van
Vaerenbergh & Thomas, 2013).
Culture can impact the validity of test results in many ways due
to cultural differ-
ences in reporting and response style. Those from Western
cultures ( e.g., the US) are
more likely to engage in self-enhancement behaviors than
individuals from Eastern
cultures ( e.g., Japan), which can impact reporting style
(Norasakkunkit & Kalick,
2002). Questionnaires may show those from Eastern cultures as

having more severe
symptoms, based on their lack of comparable engagement in
self-enhancement
behaviors, than their Western peers. This difference in
assessment scores would be
indicative of a difference in reporting style rather than a true
difference in severity of
symptoms (Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Leong et al., 2010).
Hamamura, Heine, and Paulhus (2008) also noted that Asian-
Americans have
a central tendency bias to report more moderate symptoms,
regardless of the severity
of the actual symptoms, than their Caucasian peers. Asian-
Americans may therefore
under-report the severity of their symptoms based on
differences in cultural values
alone. Finally, forced-choice responses - those that require
either a "true" or "false"
response - potentially limit the cultural validity of
measurement. Having to choose
140 Joyce P Chu et al.
between a "true" or "false" response may misrepresent
responses from some cultures
by not allowing for contextual,. situational, and cultural factors
to be addressed in
the response (Laher, 2007). Laher (2007) suggested that in order
to obtain the
most accurate and culturally competent assessment of
personality, a battery of tests
combined with client interview would be most prudent for
examination of all of the

responses within the client's cultural context.
Overall, cultural variations in idioms of distress and reporting
and response styles
can result in an over- or under-estimation of true scores on an
assessment instrument.
It will be important for assessment practitioners to assess and
note such cultural factors,
and adjust score interpretation accordingly. Utilization of
multiple modes of assessment
can help to detect cultural differences due to reporting or
response style, and all
assessment results should be understood within the cultural
context of the clients' lives.
Cultural and Technical Context of the Testing Process
In creating a culturally competent personality assessment
administration, literature
suggests that one must consider the cultural and technical
context of the testing pro-
cess. It is a common assumption that assessment measures yield
consistent responses
from the same respondent regardless of the type of room,
examiner, or method of
administration. However, one important factor in considering
equivalence of assess-
ments is the cultural and technical context in which the
assessment is given (Flaugher,
1978), as people from different cultural backgrounds react
differentially to several
aspects of the testing environment.
First, the language ( e.g., wording choice of the instrument, as
well as test
administration in an individual's preferred language) in which

assessments are given can
affect the validity of one's test responses. Linguistic
equivalence, also known as transla-
tional equivalence, is focused on the accuracy of translation
oftest items. Many poten-
tial problems arise as the result of translating personality
assessments from one language
to another, such as differences in the meaning ofwords,
differences in connotation, and
masculine bias of wording. Furthermore, regional differences in
word usage make it
difficult to create linguistically equivalent personality
assessments. Brislin ( 199 3) rec-
ommended a translation followed by back-translation procedure
(i.e., translating back
to the original language and examining for parity with the
original version) to help
ameliorate non-equivalence issues. Geisinger (1994)
recommended taking this process
one step further, through the use of an editorial board who
would back-translate the
document as a group in order to discuss any possible differences
in opinion or concerns
about the translation. When working with more than one
linguistically equivalent ver-
sion of an assessment tool, one must be aware that issues of
metric equivalence can still
exist. Lopez and Romero (1988), for example, found that
although there are many
similarities between the English and Spanish versions ofthe
Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (WAIS), there are important psychometric differences that
preclude direct
comparison between English WAIS and Spanish WAIS scores.
Second, characteristics or behaviors of the examiner or

environment can elicit
different responses that reflect cultural influence rather than the
true construct in
question. Stereotype threat, for instance, occurs when the tester
or testing environment
activates a negative stereotype about one's cultural identity
group; research shows
that stereotype threat can negatively affect one's test
performance ( e.g., Steele &
Aronson, 1995). Stereotypes can be activated by minute aspects
of the testing envi-
ronment or materials (Thames et al., 2013). For example,
discomfort by the exam-
inee with the tester (i.e., because of previous negative
experiences with others of a
similar gender or race, or because of the tester's interpersonal
mannerisms) may
discourage versus facilitate open, introspective, and/or honest
responses on assess-
ment instruments (Thames et al., 2013).
Third, the method of test administration - termed technical
equivalence - can also
affect one's assessment responses. Ryder et al. (2008), for
example, found that the
same respondents reported different severity levels of
symptomatology depending on
method of test administration via spontaneous report, self-report
questionnaire, versus
in-person clinical interview. Specifically, Chinese participants
reported more somatic

symptoms than their Euro-Canadian counterparts when queried
directly via clinical
interview or spontaneous report. These group differences in
somatization were not
apparent when assessed via self-report questionnaire. Morrison
and Downey (2000)
found similarly that ethnic minority clients at a counseling
center were less likely than
non-minority peers to disclose suicidal ideation on self-report; a
greater level of ide-
ation became evident only after direct suicide risk assessment
by a provider.
The mediating reasons why different methods of test
administration or testing
environment yield different responses in ethnic minority
individuals is still largely
unknown, though a cadre of cultural factors may account for
such effects. Social
desirability, cultural mistrust of healthcare professionals,
cultural practices of expres-
sivity versus inhibition, stigma about psychology, and so on,
may represent cultural
variables that could affect testing response and are deserving of
further study. Clearly,
research is needed to further quantify the effects of the cultural
and technical con-
text of the testing environment on personality assessment
responses, and to identify
the cultural factors that mediate differential testing responses.
When conducting assessment, it is essential to remember that
many factors beyond
the assessment items themselves, such as the cultural and
technical context of the
testing process, may affect the equivalence and validity of

results (Dana, 2000).
Although some factors may be out of the control of the test
administrator, efforts
should be directed towards minimizing extraneous factors,
adapting the test envi-
ronment to maximize open responding depending on the client's
cultural
background, and contextualizing one's interpretation oftest
responses within salient
cultural influences in the testing environment.
Culturally Informed Responses to Feedback
Providing feedback about test results to clients is an integral
part of the assessment
process, with the field of psychology moving towards a more
comprehensive model
of feedback provision (Finn & Tonsager, 1992 ). In fact,
research indicates that
providing assessment feedback to clients in a professional and
compassionate
manner can, in and of itself, serve as a clinical intervention. A
series of experi-
mental studies found a number of positive consequences of
providing empathetic
feedback to college students after completing the MMPI-2 (Finn
& Tonsager,
1992; Newman & Greenway, 1997). Compared with control
participants who only
received examiner attention, participants in the feedback
condition demonstrated a

significant decrease in symptomatology that persisted at follow -
up two weeks later.
Additionally, participants in the experimental condition
evidenced greater levels of
hopefulness and self-esteem compared with the control group
immediately and two
weeks following feedback.
Although few dispute the importance of giving assessment
feedback to clients,
there is a dearth of research investigating the effects of
different approaches to client
feedback, and even fewer investigations offeedback as
influenced by issues of cultural
diversity. There is a need for psychologists to understand
potential issues that culture
can present when providing feedback to clients.
For instance, some of the individual difference characteristics
responsible for the
effectiveness of assessment feedback may be culturally variant.
In Finn and Tonsager's
(1992) study, authors found that participants who were more
self-reflective at
intake were generally more likely to show positive reactions to
MMPI-2 feedback.
Self-reflection varies depending on cultural identity such as age
( e.g., Haga, Kraft, &
Corby, 2009), highlighting that one must account for cultural
variation in self-
reflection or other emotion regulation tendencies when tailoring
one's approach
towards assessment feedback.
Client response to the mode of assessment feedback may also be
culturally deter-

mined. Feedback may be delivered by the provider via several
modes: in person versus
in a written report. Some providers may even decide it is
prudent not to provide
feedback at all. Most models of feedback provision have been
based on person-to-
person provision of feedback, emphasizing a humanistic
component that engages
the client and allows them to feel more involved (Finn &
Tonsager, 1992). Yet, just
as the technical context or mode of assessment administration
can elicit different
responses from different cultural individuals, mode of feedback
can also elicit
difference responses. For example, providing a written report of
assessment results to
a cultural minority client with a limited familiarity with or
understanding of
psychological and medical jargon may serve to alienate the
client or decrease effec-
tiveness of the assessment feedback.
A last example of cultural influence on assessment feedback
involves expectations
of involvement by the client, the assessor, and the client's
therapist in the feedback
process. According to Kreilkamp (1989) active participation by
the client is a basic
and important component of providing assessment feedback that
motivates clients
to take ownership of their results. The recommendation may be
less applicable for
clients from collectivistic cultures who may prefer not to
collaborate as an active
participant or advocate in the process of feedback provision.
Cultures that value

respect for authority figures may view client participation in the
feedback provision
as disrespectful or unwanted.
Providing feedback to clients about their personality assessment
results can be
a challenging, yet rewarding experience. The challenges become
increasingly more
complicated with the need for incorporation of diversity and
cultural considerations.
Clearly, flexibility and careful consideration of cultural aspects
will be an integral part
of competently providing feedback to clients. Additional
research is needed to inves-
tigate recommended models of feedback provision with diverse
populations.
Conclusion
The literature to date concerning multicultural personality
assessment is rich with
recommendations for practice and further research. As the field
of personality
assessment moves forward, it is essential that findings from the
literature be
incorporated into practice. Without awareness and knowledge of
cultural differences,
personality assessment can be misleading or inaccurate.
Competence in personality
assessment, as with psychological assessment in general,
requires administrators to be

knowledgeable about the appropriateness and limits of the test
they are using,
including cultural variables that can impact the testing process
and test performance.
The current literature analysis indicated that development,
administration, inter-
pretation, and client feedback of results from assessment
measures should incorporate
cultural influences in five main domains: differential norms,
incorporation of cultur-
ally valid representations of the construct, cultural idi oms of
distress and reporting
and response style, the cultural and technical context of the
testing process, and
culturally informed responses to assessment feedback. By
accounting for these
cultural domains, personality assessment will have a better
chance at creating a
testing process with utility in a variety of contexts and diverse
populations.
The future of personality assessment is ripe with potential. With
accumulating
research on personality across cultures, assessment is becoming
more advanced.
Further research investigating personality differences between
cultural groups, within
cultural groups, and across cultures is needed to enhance the
validity of existing per-
sonality constructs and theories. Studies are needed to further
identify cultural variables
that may interfere with the substantive validity of true
assessment results, to examine
the ideal testing environment and assessment feedback
conditions depending on

cultural background, and to provide guidelines for incorporating
idioms of distress and
reporting and response style into culturally competent
interpretation of test results.
Research is also needed to investigate solutions to appropriately
assess personality
constructs in diverse groups without creating individualized
assessments for the infinite
numbers ofcultural identity subgroups. The field ofdiversity and
personality assessment
is in a nascent stage with considerable potential for
advancement. The five domains in
this paper provide a basis to conceptualize the effects of culture
on assessment, and
provide guidelines for practice and future research in diversity
and assessment.
References
Brislin, R. W. (1993). Understanding Culture"s Influence on
Behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Butcher, J.N. (1996). International Adaptations ofthe MMPI-2:
Research and Clinical Appli-
cations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J.N. (2004). Personality assessment without borders:
Adaptation of the MMPI-2
across cultures. Journal ofPersonality Arsessment, 83 (2 ), 90-
104.
Butcher, J.N. (2005). MMPI-2: A Practitioner's Guide.

Washington, DC: American Psychi-
atric Association.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014a). Racial &
ethnic minority populations.
Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/remp.html
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (20146 ). Hispanic
or Latino Populations. Retrieved
from
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/hispanic.
html
Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F.
(2003). The English version
of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology,
34 (4), 433-452.
Church, A. (2001 ). Personality measurement in cross-cultural
perspective. Journal ofPerson-
ality, 69 (6), 979-1006.
Constantino, G., & Malgady, R.G. (2000). Multicultural and
cross-cultural utility of the
TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story) test. In R.H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook
of Cross-cultural and
Multicultural Personality Arsessment (pp. 481-513). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Dana, R.H. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of Cross-cultural and
Multicultural Personality
Arsessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dinh, T.Q., Yamada, A.M., & Yee, B.W.K. (2009). A culturally
relevant conceptualization
of depression: an empirical examination of the factorial
structure of the Vietnamese
Depression Scale. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 55
( 6 ), 496-505.
Finn, S.E., & Tonsager, M.E. (1992). Therapeutic effects
ofproviding MMPI-2 test feedback
to college students awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment,
4 ( 3 ), 2 78-28 7.
Flaugher, R.L. ( 1978 ). The many definitions oftest bias.
American Psychowgist, 33 (7), 671-679.
Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment:
Translation and adaptation
issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment
instruments. Psychological
Arsessment, 6(4), 304-312.
Grimm, S.D., & Church, A.T. (1999). A cross-cultural study
ofresponse biases in personality
measures. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 33 (4), 415-441.
Haga, S.M., Kraft, P., & Corby, E.K. (2009). Emotion
regulation: Antecedents and well-being
outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in
cross-cultural samples.
Journal ofHappiness Studies, 10 (3), 271-291.
Hall, G.C.N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I.R. (1999). Ethnicity and
psychopathology: A meta-
analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2
Research. Journal of
Psychological.Arsessment, 11 (2), 186-197.

Hamamura, T., Heine, S.J., & Paulhus, D.L. (2008). Cultural
differences in response
styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44 ( 4 ),
932-942.
Heiervang, E., Goodman, A., & Goodman, R. (2008). The
Nordic advantage in child mental
health: separating health differences from reporting style in a
cross-cultural comparison
of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 49 (6), 678-685.
Hill, J.S., Pace, T.M., & Robbins, R.R. (2010). Decolonizing
personality assessment and
honoring indigenous voices: A critical examination of the
MMPI-2. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 (1), 16-25.
Kreilkamp, T. (1989). Time-limited, Intermittent Therapy with
Children and Families.
New York: Brunner/Maze!.
Laher, S. (2007). Personality re-conceptualized: Amillonian
approach. South African Journal
of Psychology, 37 (1 ), 82-95.
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/remp.html
Leong, F.L., Leung, K, & Cheung, F.M. (2010). Integrating
cross-cultural psychology research

methods into ethnic minority psychology. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psy-
chology, 16 (4), 590-597.
Lopez, S., & Romero, A. (1988). Assessing the intellectual
functioning of Spanish-speaking
adults: Comparison of the EIWA and the WAIS. Journal of
Processional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 19 (3), 263-270.
Mak, W.W., & Zane, N.W. (2004). The phenomenon of
somatization among community
Chinese Americans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 39 ( 12), 967-974.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-
factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 52 ( 1), 81-90.
Morrison, L.L., & Downey, D.L. (2000). Racial differences in
self-disclosure of suicidal
ideation and reasons for living: implications for training.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 6 (4), 374.
Newman, M.L., & Greenway, P. (1997). Therapeutic effects of
providing MMPI-2 test
feedback to clients at a university counseling service: A
collaborative approach.
Psychological Assessment, 9 (2), 122-131.
Nichter, M. ( 1981 ). Idioms of distress: Alternatives in the
expression of psychosocial distress:
A case study from South India. Culture, Medicine and
Psychiatry, 5 (4), 379-408.

Norasakkunkit, V., & Kalick, S.M. (2002). Culture, ethnicity,
and emotional distress measures:
The role of self-construal and self-enhancement. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology,
33 (1 ), 56-70.
Pritchard, D.A., & Rosenblatt, A. ( 1980). Racial bias in the
MMPI: A methodological review.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48 (2), 263-267.
Ryder, A.G., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Yao, S., Yi, J., Heine, S.J., &
Bagby, M. (2008). The cultural
shaping of depression: Somatic symptoms in China,
psychological symptoms in North
America. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 117 (2), 300-313.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995 ). Stereotype threat and the
intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 69 (5), 797-811.
Thames, A.D., Hinkin, C.H., Byrd, D.A., Bilder, R.M., Duff,
KJ., Mindt, M.R., & ... Streiff,
V. (2013). Effects of stereotype threat, perceived
discrimination, and examiner race on
neuropsychological performance: Simple as Black and White?
Journal ofthe International
Neuropsychological Society, 19 (5), 583-593.
Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T.D. (2013). Response styles
in survey research: A literature
review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies.
International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 25 (2), 195-217.

Vijver, F., & Phalet, K (2004 ). Assessment in multicultural
groups: The role of acculturation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53 (2), 215-236.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where's the 'culture' in cross-
cultural transition? Compara-
tive studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal ofCross-Cultural
Psychology, 24 (2 ), 221-249.
M i n d s e t Wo r k s
®
E d u c a t o r K i t - M o du l e 1 T oo l k i t
Copyright © 2002-2012 Mindset Works, Inc. All rights
reserved.
M
in
d
s
e
t
W
o
rk
s
®

E
d
u
c
a
to
rK
it
MINDSET ASSESSMENT PROFILE TOOL
For the Teacher: Using the Mindset Assessment Profile
This is a tool to get a quick assessment of your students’
mindsets—their beliefs about the malleability
of intelligence, the relative importance of learning and perfect
performance, and their attitudes toward
effort and mistakes.
It’s important that students not feel labeled by this tool. The
MAP categories just represent the way
they are thinking and feeling about these questions at the
present time. They can change these beliefs,
and they may feel differently on different days.

You can use this assessment tool in a number of ways. For
example, you can use it as an:
1) Individual assessment, scored by the teacher (with the result
not shared with the student)
2) Individual assessment, scored by the teacher (with the result
shared with the student)
3) Individual assessment, scored by the student
4) Individual assessment, scored by a peer
Once students have completed the assessment, you can follow
up with discussions
or activities to explore the issues raised. For example, you can:
discuss 1:1
number of 1-3
(the “fixed mindset” range) and write or talk about it.
the MAP
description fits them.
their beliefs.

category to the
class.
Here are some questions that you might explore in any of the
above formats:
you can learn and
do well?
that you can’t do
any better?
really hard? How
did you learn it?
knew it was
possible?
ligence through
effort, what goals
would you set for yourself?

®
reserved.
M
in
d
s
e
t
W
o
rk
s
®
E
d
u
c
a
to
rK
it

Mindset Assessment Profile Tool
Description: Survey for getting a quick assessment of your
students’ mindsets
Objective: Students will complete survey and (optional)
reflection
Timeline: 10-30 minutes
Instructions:
survey is a tool to
gather information—in this case, your opinions about
intelligence, performance,
learning, effort, and challenges. It may look like a test or quiz,
but in fact it is
not! Answer honestly and say what you believe. There will be
no grade attached
to the survey and the “score” you receive is not a percentage
correct. Afterwards,
we will discuss the questions and the different ways that people
think about

them.
anonymously if
desired.
-score, or not.
writing or discussion.
After th e surve y
Make sure that you emphasize that the survey is a gauge (like
taking a temperature with a
thermometer) of their thinking right now. As we learn new
things, our thinking changes.
The survey is not intended to be a way to label students, but
rather to get to the core of their
thinking so that new learning can occur.
Option al Ref lecti on/D iscu ssio n
Debrief with your class after they complete the survey. Ask:
swer? Why?

asked?
not?
®
reserved.
M
in
d
s
e
t
W
o
rk
s
®
E

d
u
c
a
to
rK
it
MINDSET ASSESSMENT PROFILE Name:
_____________________________________
This is NOT a test! It is an opinion survey about beliefs and
goals regarding ability and performance. It is
very important that you give your honest opinion, not what you
believe someone else would think best.
Read each statement, decide how much you agree or disagree
with the statement, and circle your
answer.
Do you Agree or Disagree? Disagree
A Lot
Disagree Disagree
A Little
Agree

A Little
Agree Agree
A Lot
Profile
Number
1. No matter how much intelligence
you have, you can always change it
a good deal.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
2. You can learn new things, but you
cannot really change your basic
level of intelligence.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
3. I like my work best when
it makes me think hard.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
4. I like my work best when I can
do it really well without too much
trouble.

1 2 2 3 4 5 6
5. I like work that I'll learn
from even if I make a lot of mistakes.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
6. I like my work best when I can
do it perfectly without any mistakes.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
7. When something is hard, it just
makes me want to work more on it,
not less.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
8. To tell the truth, when I work hard,
it makes me feel as though I'm not
very smart.
1 2 2 3 4 5 6
MINDSET ASSESSMENT PROFILE NUMBER

®
reserved.
M
in
d
s
e
t
W
o
rk
s
®
E
d
u
c
a
to
rK

it
Creating Your Mindset Assessment Profile
1. First, determine your Profile Number for each question.
of your answer into the boxes in the right
column.
, 8), use the table
below to fill in the gray boxes in the right
column.
If you chose this answer: Then write this number in the gray
box on the right (Profile Number).
Disagree A Lot (1) 6
Disagree (2) 5
Disagree A Little (3) 4
Agree A Little (4) 3
Agree (5) 2
Agree A Lot (6) 1
2. Now, add up all your Profile numbers.
and write the total in the last box in the bottom
right corner.

3. What does your Mindset Profile Number mean?
and circle it.
If your profile
number falls
into this range:
Then your MAP (Mindset
Assessment Profile) group is:
People in this MAP group usually believe the
following things:
8-12
F5 You strongly believe that your intelligence is fixed—it
doesn’t change much. If you can’t perform perfectly
you would rather not do something. You think smart
people don’t have to work hard.
13-16 F4
17-20
F3 You lean toward thinking that your intelligence doesn’t
change much. You prefer not to make mistakes if you
can help it and you also don’t really like to put in a lot
of work. You may think that learning should be easy.

21-24 F2
25-28
F1 You are unsure about whether you can change your
intelligence. You care about your performance and you
also want to learn, but you don’t really want to have to
work too hard for it.
29-32 G1
33-36
G2 You believe that your intelligence is something that you
can increase. You care about learning and you’re willing
to work hard. You do want to do well, but you think it’s
more important to learn than to always perform well.
37-40 G3
41-44
G4 You really feel sure that you can increase your
intelligence by learning and you like a challenge. You
believe that the best way to learn is to work hard, and
you don’t mind making mistakes while you do it.
45-48 G5
4. Do you think the description under your MAP group matches
the way you think and feel about
your school work? Which parts are true for you and which are

Cultural Factors in Personality Assessment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Cultural Factors in Personality Assessment

Similar to Cultural Factors in Personality Assessment (20)

More from BenitoSumpter862

More from BenitoSumpter862 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cultural Factors in Personality Assessment