Validation of the 20-Item Cultural Intelligence Scale in Indian within Country Migrated Students

Abstract

The objective of the present piece of work was to validation of 20 item cultural intelligence scale (CIS-20) in India within country migrated students. Following the incidental cum random sampling technique 200 North Indian engineering students within the age range of 18 to 24 years were drawn from different colleges of Warangal districts, Telangana, India to serve as participants in the present research work. The item analysis was done by corrected item-total correlation. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to confirm explored factors. Moreover, reliability, convergent, discriminant and concurrent validities were also examined. Conformity factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the four factor model of CIS-20. The findings indicated that CIS-20 has sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. The composite reliability was more than .700 for each of the five factors. All five factors of the CIS-20 are significantly associated with criterion measure viz. acculturative stress. It is concluded that there is sufficient empirical and statistical evidence of internal consistency and construct validity of CIS-20. The theoretical and practical issues have been discussed.

Psychometric properties of the Cultural Intelligence Scale based on item response theory

“…Furthermore, item loadings on the factors, that they belong to were greater than their loadings on other factors. These results are consistent with previous studies (Al-Dossary, 2016;Ang et al, 2007;Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018;Khan & Hasan, 2016;Moyano et al, 2015;Şahin et al, 2013;Starčević et al, 2017), which is another supportive evidence of the construct validity for CQS with general and four specific factor structure, and the consistency of the relationships between CQS components across different cultures and countries. Moreover, this CTT-based evidence supported the CQS validity established by IRT-GRM in this study, which support relying on CQS full scale as well as subscales in assessing and interpreting CQ.…”

“…for the scale) were similarly high for the CQS subscales and very high for the scale. These results based on CTT approaches agreed with previous studies(Al-Dossary, 2016;Ang et al, 2007;Barzykowski et al, 2019;Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018;Greischel et al, 2021;Khan & Hasan, 2016;Moyano et al, 2015;Şahin et al, 2013;Starčević et al, 2017) that confirmed the evidence of high reliability of CQS full and subscales and subscales. In addition, subscales should be used as well as full scale based on purpose and expected person ability level.…”

“…In addition, the results of the second-order CFA indicated that these four factors can be further collapsed into one general factor, with good goodness of fit indicators. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged between .75 and .84 for the factors, and was .90 for the scale as a whole, which confirms that the Saudi version of CQS is reliable and valid instrument for measuring CQ Khan and Hasan (2016). studied the CQS in India on a sample of n = 200 university students of age 18-24 years.…”

“…Several studies to adapt CQS, prepared by Ang et al (2007), to different cultures; and to investigate its psychometric properties across different countries and contexts were conducted (Al-Dossary, 2016;Ang et al, 2007;Barzykowski et al, 2019;Brancu et al, 2022;Greischel et al, 2021;Khan & Hasan, 2016;Moon, 2010;Moyano et al, 2015;Presbitero, 2016;Remhof et al, 2013;Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018;Ruparel et al, 2020;Şahin et al, 2013;Schlägel & Sarstedt, 2016;Starčević et al, 2017;Ziada et al, 2021).…”

“…Several studies to adapt CQS, prepared by Ang et al (2007), to different cultures; and to investigate its psychometric properties across different countries and contexts were conducted (Al‐Dossary, 2016; Ang et al, 2007; Barzykowski et al, 2019; Brancu et al, 2022; Greischel et al, 2021; Khan & Hasan, 2016; Moon, 2010; Moyano et al, 2015; Presbitero, 2016; Remhof et al, 2013; Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018; Ruparel et al, 2020; Şahin et al, 2013; Schlägel & Sarstedt, 2016; Starčević et al, 2017; Ziada et al, 2021). These studies indicated that CQS has good psychometric properties across different countries and cultures, and the majority of them supported the four‐factor model, despite the cultural differences of the samples on which it was applied.…”