Over the past decade, researchers translating anthropological theories for clinical use have debated how practitioners should assess cultural factors, social structures, and social determinants of health with patients. Advocates of structural competency have suggested that clinical cultural competency programs demonstrate limited effects on health outcomes because of the static understanding of culture employed. They recommend that cultural factors be reformulated with an emphasis on social structures. In response, researchers in cultural psychiatry specializing in cultural assessments have developed three models—sociocultural formulation (SCF), the cultural-ecosocial view, and the contextual developmental assessment—to integrate cultural and structural factors. Their methods for integration, however, differ, resulting in various understandings of psychopathology mechanisms. This paper analyzes arguments from all four positions in this debate. It reveals a lack of consensus about interrelationships among these constructs, their definitions, and methods for assessment. The article concludes with recommendations, such as developing consensus definitions with broad stakeholder involvement; adopting a data-driven approach to clarify how specific cultural, social, or structural factors interact; and identifying how extant assessments capture clinically relevant factors across constructs to develop additional assessment tools.