Assessment in multicultural groups: The South African case

Abstract

In the last decade the multicultural nature of populations has become more prominent in many countries. Processes of migration and globalisation are often associated with these changes. Take for instance the Netherlands. Labour migration and, more recently, refugee streams have added to the cultural pluralism. In the past (im)migrating groups were often small and each year there were more emigrants than immigrants. In the last 30 years the pattern has changed and the immigration stream is larger than the emigration stream. Whereas in the past immigrants always adapted fully to the Dutch culture and became fully assimilated, it seems now that the recent groups of migrants, mainly from Morocco and Turkey, show more cultural adherence and are less inclined to fully adopt the Dutch culture. This multicultural nature is a novel feature of the Dutch society; not surprisingly, it has received much attention, both in scientific and public discourse. However, there are very few countries in which this change has taken a more visible form and has had more implications than in South Africa. The current article focuses on the implications for psychological assessment of this change.The cultural appropriateness of psychological tests and their usage were placed in the spotlight with the promulgation of the new Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, Section 8 (Government Gazette, 1998), which stipulates that: "Psychological testing and other similar assessments are prohibited unless the test or assessment being used -(a) has been scientifically shown to be valid and reliable, (b) can be applied fairly to all employees; and (c) is not biased against any employee or group."This law differs in two aspects with legislation in various other countries. First, in most countries the legislator adopts the opposite perspective by stipulating that discrimination and unfair treatment in psychological assessment are forbidden. The latter position assumes the fairness of psychological tests, unless proven otherwise. The South African law, on the other hand, requires psychologists to be proactively involved by requiring evidence that tests are fair and unbiased. Second, in various countries issues of bias and fairness are not primarily enacted in national laws, but in codes defined by professional organizations of psychologists and enforceable on their members. Although many countries have both legal and professional regulations, their enforcement shows considerable cross-cultural variation. For example, whereas in South Africa court cases are the main option available to plaintiffs, in a country like the Netherlands the ethics committee of the national association of psychologists is more likely to see a complaint being filed than is one of the courts.The question can be raised as to whether psychology as a profession in South Africa is ready for the challenge implied by the Equity Act. It is probably fair to say that the law is ahead of the daily practice here and that, to date no single country can live up to the expectations and demands rais...

The construct equivalence and item bias of the pib/SpEEx conceptualisation-ability test for members of five language groups in South Africa

“…Construct equivalence can be investigated through several techniques, such as factor analysis, cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling or other dimensionalityreducing techniques (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In this study, construct equivalence was examined by means of exploratory factor analysis.…”

“…Factor analysis is relevant for the establishment of construct equivalence because it decomposes observed scores into unobserved components (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In this study, the factor analysis consisted of a two-step procedure proposed by Van de Vijver and Leung (1997).…”

“…Quasiexperimental designs help researchers test for causal relationships in a variety of situations (Neuman, 1997). According to Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) the interpretability of observed differences in the focal variable and on a reduction in the number of alternative explanations. A substantive step in the process of enhancing the interpretability of observed differences and reducing alternative explanations is the choice of appropriate context variables either to verify or to falsify a particular interpretation (Van de Vijver & Leung (1997).…”

“…According to Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) the interpretability of observed differences in the focal variable and on a reduction in the number of alternative explanations. A substantive step in the process of enhancing the interpretability of observed differences and reducing alternative explanations is the choice of appropriate context variables either to verify or to falsify a particular interpretation (Van de Vijver & Leung (1997). It is evident from the preceding literature discussion that language group as a context variable can be considered a plausible explanation of the observed differences in the focal variable (test score).…”

“…According to Van de Vijver and Leung (1997), item bias refers to measurement artefacts at item level. A few examples from an inexhaustive list of nuisance factors at item level are poor item translation, inappropriate item content and inadequate item formulation (complex wording).…”