Search

Background: Due to changes in Polish society resulting from a significant inflow of immigrants to Poland, the need to develop the cultural competences of various professional groups who have contact with immigrants in their work has increased. These groups should include healthcare professionals, especially because of the significant increase in the number of culturally diverse patients. Therefore, medical education in Poland has had to rapidly adapt to this novel situation. For instance, the teaching process should be now more focused on the development and evaluation of the cultural competences of prospective health care workers. However, there is still a lack of standardized, valid and reliable instruments to assess cross-cultural competences among healthcare professionals. The purpose of the present paper was to describe, for the first time, the translation, adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the Polish version of the Cross-Cultural Competence Inventory. Methods: Across two studies, we examined psychometric properties of the Cross-Cultural Competence Inventory (CCCI) such as reliability (i.e. internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure) and validity (i.e. theoretical, criteria, convergent). In the first study, 408 participants (75% were healthcare professionals) completed the Polish version of the CCCI and the Positive/Negative Attitude Towards Culturally Divergent People Questionnaire. In the second study, 317 participants (97% were healthcare professionals) completed the CCCI twice, with an interval of at least 22 days. In addition, across two study sessions, participants completed questionnaires constructed to measure (a) cultural intelligence, (b) need for cognitive closure, (c) emphatic sensitiveness, (d) emotional intelligence, (e) self-esteem, (f) social desirability, and (g) personality. Finally, to additionally examine the theoretical validity, 36 professional cross-cultural competence trainers completed the CCCI during a one-session study. Results: Our findings confirm the reliability and validity of the CCCI. More precisely, in study 1 we proved the theoretical validity and reliability (i.e. internal consistency) of the CCCI. While the assumed structure did not fit the data well, all items were significantly related to the general factor, thus providing strong support for the usage of the total score of the CCCI. In study 2, we additionally estimated the test-retest reliability and theoretical, criterion and convergent validity. Across two studies we were able to successfully confirm these psychometric properties. The reliability was satisfactory and ranged from .83 to .86. We also observed a high and significant positive correlation between CCCI and the Cultural Intelligence Scale, which measures a concept similar to the one measured by CCCI. In addition, a significant relationship between intercultural competences (CCCI) and other variables such as personality, empathic sensitivity, emotional intelligence, self-esteem (positive correlations) and the need for cognitive closure (mainly negative correlation) were demonstrated. Conclusions: The obtained results support the usage of the CCCI questionnaire in scientific research, such as, for example, among healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors) and students of medical fields (nursing, medicine). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Demand-Control (DC) and Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) models predict health in a work context. Self-report measures of the four key constructs (demand, control, effort, and reward) have been developed and it is important that these measures have good content validity uncontaminated by content from other constructs. We assessed relevance (whether items reflect the constructs) and representativeness (whether all aspects of the construct are assessed, and all items contribute to that assessment) across the instruments and items.Methods: Two studies examined fourteen demand/control items from the Job Content Questionnaire and seventeen effort/reward items from the Effort-Reward Imbalance measure using discriminant content validation and a third study developed new methods to assess instrument representativeness. Both methods use judges' ratings and construct definitions to get transparent quantitative estimates of construct validity. Study 1 used dictionary definitions while studies 2 and 3 used published phrases to define constructs.Results: Overall, 3/5 demand items, 4/9 control items, 1/6 effort items, and 7/11 reward items were uniquely classified to the appropriate theoretical construct and were therefore 'pure' items with discriminant content validity (DCV). All pure items measured a defining phrase. However, both the DC and ERI assessment instruments failed to assess all defining aspects.Conclusions: Finding good discriminant content validity for demand and reward measures means these measures are usable and our quantitative results can guide item selection. By contrast, effort and control measures had limitations (in relevance and representativeness) presenting a challenge to the implementation of the theories. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? While the reliability and construct validity of Demand-Control and Effort-Reward-Imbalance (DC and ERI) work stress measures are routinely reported, there has not been adequate investigation of their content validity. This paper investigates their content validity in terms of both relevance and representativeness and provides a model for the investigation of content validity of measures in health psychology more generally. What does this study add? A new application of an existing method, discriminant content validity, and a new method of assessing instrument representativeness. 'Pure' DC and ERI items are identified, as are constructs that are not fully represented by their assessment instruments. The findings are important for studies attempting to distinguish between the main DC and ERI work stress constructs. The quantitative results can be used to guide item selection for future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The goal of this paper is to provide researchers who are not experts in psychometric theory with a concise guide to instrument selection, development and evaluation. Issues of context factors related to the setting or population in which an instrument will be used and psychometrics the functioning of an instrument within a given context are reviewed and discussed. Finally, four categories or types of instruments, and the psychometric analyses that are necessary for establishing the reliability and validity of each type, are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures" published in the June 2004 issue of the journal "Educational and Psychological Measurement," grew out of a meeting its author Lee J. Cronbach had at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in June 2001. Cronbach had just completed a major project that his close friend and colleague, Richard E. Snow, had begun and couldn't complete because of his untimely death in December 1997. Cronbach had been encouraged to take on the project and was provided research assistant support in the person of Min Li, now an assistant professor at the University of Washington.