Robustness and cross-cultural equivalence of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the cross-cultural equivalence of the four-dimensional 20-item Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) and the two-dimensional 12-item cultural intelligence (CQ) short scale. Furthermore, the study elaborates on the results by discussing the differences between culturally equivalent and culturally non-equivalent items. Design/methodology/approach Data gathered from 607 students with a Chinese or Dutch background and mature international experience serve to test the cross-cultural equivalence of the CQS. Findings This study addresses the lack of clarity concerning the cross-cultural equivalence of the CQS in the extended domain of empirical research involving CQ. Furthermore, the consequences of the cultural equivalence tests are discussed. Practical implications Comparing CQ scores across cultures is only meaningful with the use of the adjusted, two-dimensional scale. Practitioners must be aware of the emic-etic character of the measurement instrument they use. Originality/value This study addresses the lack of clarity concerning the cross-cultural equivalence of the CQS in the extended domain of empirical research involving CQ. Furthermore, the consequences of the cultural equivalence tests are discussed.

Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence

“…Research studies related to the validity of CQS are summarized in Table 1. These studies examined the fitness of CQ models (Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall, 2009), the distinctiveness of CQ from other constructs, such as EQ (T. Moon, 2010a), the validity of CQS in languages other than English (Moyano, Tabernero, Melero, & Trujillo, 2015), and measurement equivalence across countries (Bücker, Furrer, & Weem, 2016;Schlägel & Sarstedt, 2016).…”

Cultural intelligence, global mindset, and cross-cultural competencies: a systematic review using bibliometric methods

“…Antecedents (1) CQ (1) Relationship between international exposure, languages, orientations, sex, age, and education with BCIQ (Alon, Boulanger, Elston, Galanaki, de Ibarreta, Meyers et al, 2018) Learning (1) CQ (1) Experiential cross-cultural training and CQ (Alexandra, 2018) See also: Xu and Chen, 2017 (2) CC (1) Examine the mediating role of CC in the relationship between personality and cultural adjustment (Wu and Bodigerel-Koehler, 2013) Examine the relationship between CQ and transformational leadership (Ramsey et al, 2017) Examine the relationship between metacognitive and motivational CQ with cultural learning and job creativity of expatriates (Xu and Chen, 2017; see learning) * Group-level Outcome (2) CQ (2) Examine the moderating role of motivational CQ in the relationship between psychic distance and team performance (Magnusson et al, 2014) Examine the interaction effect between cognitive and metacognitive CQ on an individual's creativity in multicultural teams (Chua and Ng, 2017) CQ and international exposure (2D: 9) Concept, stages, measurement (1) CQ (1) Assessment of the cross-cultural equivalence of the four-dimensional 20-item CQ scale and the two-dimensional 12-item CQ short scale (Bücker et al, 2016) See also: Schreuders-van den Bergh and Du Plessis, 2016;Varela and Gatlin-Watts, 2014 Antecedents (4) CQ (4) Examine the relationship between cultural beliefs and CQ in international sojourns (Chao et al, 2017) Examine the relationship between international sojourns and CQ (Varela and Gatlin-Watts, 2014; see conceptualisation) * Examine the relationship between cross-cultural trigger events and CQ with a discussion of the implications for training (Reichard et al, 2015; see learning) * Examine the relationship between individual motives and CQ in study abroad programs and the mediating role of cultural boundary spanning (Holtbrügge and Engelhard, 2016) See also: Remhof et al, 2013 Learning See also:…”

“…Third, we need further research that demonstrates incremental predictive validity of both the overall construct over other constructs and of sub-dimensions of the construct for different areas (e.g., Richter et al, 2019; see also Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013). Fourth, researchers need to further test the statistical properties, such as measurement equivalence, discriminant validity of sub-dimensions of CQ, and of CQ in contrast to sub-dimensions of GM or CC (e.g., Bücker et al, 2016;Schlägel and Sarstedt, 2016).…”

Cultural intelligence, global mindset, and cross-cultural competencies: a systematic review using bibliometric methods

“…Elaborate on the need to embed a corporate GM in company-wide policies (Begley and Boyd, 2003; see conceptualisation) * Examine the relationship between top management orientations and employee commitment in MNC (Taylor et al, 2008 1Examine the mediating role of CC in the relationship between personality and cultural adjustment (Wu and Bodigerel-Koehler, 2013) Examine the relationship between CQ and transformational leadership (Ramsey et al, 2017) Examine the relationship between metacognitive and motivational CQ with cultural learning and job creativity of expatriates (Xu and Chen, 2017; see learning) * Group-level Outcome 2CQ 2Examine the moderating role of motivational CQ in the relationship between psychic distance and team performance (Magnusson et al, 2014) Examine the interaction effect between cognitive and metacognitive CQ on an individual's creativity in multicultural teams (Chua and Ng, 2017) CQ and international exposure (2D: 9) Concept, stages, measurement 1CQ 1Assessment of the cross-cultural equivalence of the four-dimensional 20-item CQ scale and the two-dimensional 12-item CQ short scale (Bücker et al, 2016) See also: Schreuders-van den Bergh and Du Plessis, 2016;Varela and Gatlin-Watts, 2014 Antecedents (4) CQ 4Examine the relationship between cultural beliefs and CQ in international sojourns (Chao et al, 2017) Examine the relationship between international sojourns and CQ (Varela and Gatlin-Watts, 2014; see conceptualisation) * Examine the relationship between cross-cultural trigger events and CQ with a discussion of the implications for training (Reichard et al, 2015; see learning) * Examine the relationship between individual motives and CQ in study abroad programs and the mediating role of cultural boundary spanning (Holtbrügge and Engelhard, 2016) See also: Remhof et al, 2013 Learning See also: Reichard et al, 2015;Schreuders-van den Bergh and Du Plessis, 2016 Individuallevel outcome…”