1979
DOI: 10.1016/0147-1767(79)90045-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
137
1
9

Year Published

1990
1990
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 303 publications
(149 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
2
137
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…In a study of Japanese students studying in the U.S. (Nishida, 1985), participants and the researcher rated each student on seven interpersonal communication skills (cf. Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Several weeks later, students were also rated on their level of cross-cultural adaptation, measured by the level of culture shock (i.e., self-ratings of positive, negative, or neutral feelings about their international experience), psychological adjustment (i.e., three self-reported measures assessing participant's feelings toward life in America), and interaction effectiveness (i.e., self-reported feeling about interacting with Americans; researcher-reported assessment of effective interaction).…”
Section: Tolerance For Ambiguitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a study of Japanese students studying in the U.S. (Nishida, 1985), participants and the researcher rated each student on seven interpersonal communication skills (cf. Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Several weeks later, students were also rated on their level of cross-cultural adaptation, measured by the level of culture shock (i.e., self-ratings of positive, negative, or neutral feelings about their international experience), psychological adjustment (i.e., three self-reported measures assessing participant's feelings toward life in America), and interaction effectiveness (i.e., self-reported feeling about interacting with Americans; researcher-reported assessment of effective interaction).…”
Section: Tolerance For Ambiguitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, expatriates will have more time to apprehend the idiosyncrasies of the new environment (Selmer, 2002), choosing to adopt only those attitudes they feel comfortable with (Lee and Larwood, 1983: 659), and benefiting from valued characteristics 20 of the two conflicting situations. This is possible because the transitional facet of the liminal situation diminishes the influence of all the former social structures (Ruben and Kealey, 1979), leaving expatriates freed from habitual social constraints. This is not to say that they are permitted anything, but the state of liminality allows them to explore novel approaches and strategies that would otherwise be considered impossible.…”
Section: Liminal Experiencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While most of these instruments seem to have been employed only once, several have been more broadly utilized to measure intercultural competence (Dunn, Smith, & Montoya, 2006;Sinicrope, Norris, & Watanabe, 2003) either to compare scores across diverse populations or to test the effect of a particular treatment on intercultural competence growth. Some of the more common instruments include the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC) (Koeser & Olebe 1988;Ruben & Kealey, 1979), the Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992), the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003), the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) (Kelley & Meyers, 1995), the Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI) (Olson & Kroeger, 2001), the Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC) (Fantini, 2000(Fantini, , 2006, the Miville-Guzman UniversalityDiversity Scale (M-GUDS) (Miville, Gelso, Pannu, Lui, Touradji, Holloway, & Fuertes, 1999), and the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) (Braskamp, Braskamp, & Merrill, 2008 (Pope & Mueller, 2000).…”
Section: Intercultural Competencementioning
confidence: 99%