Developing and Validating a Scale to Measure Turkish and Kazakhstani ELT Pre-Service Teachers’ Intercultural Communicative Competence

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe the development of the Intercultural Communicative Competence Scale (ICCS). Two different groups from Turkey and Kazakhstan constituted the sample. The Turkish group (N=258) participated in the piloting process to develop the scale. The Kazakhstani group (N=314) was used to confirm the structure validity of the instrument. Based on review of literature, 76 items important for assessing ICC were generated. After expert revision for the face and content validity of the scale, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied. According to the results, the content validity index (CVI) for the ICC scale was found acceptable (CVI=0.7). EFA results found that the scale, consisting of 4 factors and 52 items, explained 50.78% of the total variance. The factor loadings showed that 21 items loaded fairly strongly on Component 1 (Skills), 13 items on Component 2 (Attitude), 12 items on Component 3 (Awareness), and 6 items on Component 4 (Knowledge). CFA results also confirmed the four factorial structure of the scale. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients of four factors and a whole instrument were found .946; .906; .880; .806 and .958 respectively.

Validation of intercultural competence scale in the Ethiopian context: Exploring the factor structure and psychometric properties among university students

“…In terms of CFA, no support was found for the original ICC scale. However, the present study result was consistent with the study done by several scholars,[ 9 13 16 30 ] showing a refined four-factor structure of ICC with very good fit indices. Furthermore, CFA indicates that the data fit the hypothesized model since the analysis confirmed that the model of this study has good construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) as well as acceptable goodness of fit indices.…”

“…of items discrepancies in the present study conveyed in the literature are somewhat ascribed to individuals with different cultural backgrounds, translated language, sample heterogeneity, sample size, quality of data, and different statistical methods, for example, EFA vs. CFA employed. [ 9 13 16 30 33 ] Generally, the finding of the present study offers certain surplus support for[ 11 ] four-factor multidimensional intercultural competence scales and their possible generalizability to various eco-cultural contexts. Although the intercultural competence scale is one of the most comprehensive and widely used, it has never been translated into Amharic, and the research supporting its use in the Ethiopian context is insufficient.…”

“…Although the majority of the earlier studies using intercultural competence measure were conducted in English-speaking society, there is a growing body of interest in other cultures like Ethiopian contexts. For instance, the intercultural competence scale has been translated into several languages including Chines,[ 12 ] Turkish,[ 13 ] Italian,[ 14 ] and Taiwanese. [ 15 ] Despite the fact that this scale has been widely used in Western and some Asian countries, the lack of its Amharic version that maybe contributes to the Ethiopian context is the shortcoming.…”

Prospective Teachers’ Intercultural Sensitivity alongside the Contextual Factors as the Affective Domain to Realize Multicultural Education

“…Multicultural education is defined as the education incorporating various values from a variety of socio-cultural affiliations (Barzanò et al, 2017). When interacting in the midst of complex cultural differences, the teacher acts as an active facilitator in multicultural education to teach students intercultural competence (Kazykhankyzy & Alagözlü, 2019). Students can learn intercultural competence if they already have intercultural sensitivity.…”

Instrument to Evaluate Intercultural Competence in Pedagogy Students

“…The goodness of fit between the CFA-derived and hypothetical models may vary depending on the sample size [48]. The consulted literature indicates that a sample of 500 people is considered very good [54]. Therefore, the adequate goodness of fit presented by the instrument after applying the TFA can be interpreted based on the size of the study sample, which is 521 students.…”