Theory and intervention equivalence and bias: New constructs and adaptation of the systematic test of equivalence procedure

Self-Monitoring, Loneliness, EAPs, Social Justice, Cross-Cultural Psychology, and Peacebuilding: Challenges and Opportunities

“…Cross-cultural validity refers to demonstrating the relevance, for instance, of concepts, theories, methods, analyses, and interventions when conducting psychological work in different cultures or countries (Gerstein, 2011(Gerstein, , 2015. More specifically, cross-cultural validity is established when a theory, for example, defined in one culture or country is found to be valid in another culture or country (Gerstein, 2021). Central to investigating this form of validity is demonstrating that relevant forms of equivalence (e.g., construct, theory, method, linguistic, intervention, measurement) exist between the cultures or countries of interest, and that bias (e.g., construct, theory, method, intervention) is minimal (Gerstein, 2021).…”

“…More specifically, cross-cultural validity is established when a theory, for example, defined in one culture or country is found to be valid in another culture or country (Gerstein, 2021). Central to investigating this form of validity is demonstrating that relevant forms of equivalence (e.g., construct, theory, method, linguistic, intervention, measurement) exist between the cultures or countries of interest, and that bias (e.g., construct, theory, method, intervention) is minimal (Gerstein, 2021). To illustrate, although scholars have not specifically claimed there is evidence to support the theory equivalence of the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) and the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew, 1998) across diverse populations, settings, cultures, and countries, the adaptation and evolution of these paradigms designed to explain the optimal interpersonal contact between in-group and out-group members to reduce or prevent conflict, and the extensive body of research, can be viewed as strong evidence for their theory equivalence (Gerstein, 2021).…”

“…Central to investigating this form of validity is demonstrating that relevant forms of equivalence (e.g., construct, theory, method, linguistic, intervention, measurement) exist between the cultures or countries of interest, and that bias (e.g., construct, theory, method, intervention) is minimal (Gerstein, 2021). To illustrate, although scholars have not specifically claimed there is evidence to support the theory equivalence of the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) and the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew, 1998) across diverse populations, settings, cultures, and countries, the adaptation and evolution of these paradigms designed to explain the optimal interpersonal contact between in-group and out-group members to reduce or prevent conflict, and the extensive body of research, can be viewed as strong evidence for their theory equivalence (Gerstein, 2021). In contrast, Ryff's (1989) subjective psychological well-being model which was created to explain the well-being of U.S. individuals, may be inconsistent with the constructs, assumptions, and predictions that describe this experience in Middle Eastern and Eastern belief systems.…”

“…In contrast, Ryff's (1989) subjective psychological well-being model which was created to explain the well-being of U.S. individuals, may be inconsistent with the constructs, assumptions, and predictions that describe this experience in Middle Eastern and Eastern belief systems. Hence, if one were to rely on Ryff's model when researching individuals from the Middle East or Asia, a theory bias would be present in the investigation (Gerstein, 2021).…”

“…For example, it has been adapted to be culturally appropriate for clients in Pakistan (Naeem et al, 2015) and Hong Kong (e.g., Lau et al, 2010). Therefore, it can be concluded that intervention equivalence has been established for the use of CBT with these clients (Gerstein, 2021). If CBT had not been culturally adapted before working with Pakistani and Hong Kong clients, and if research had not been conducted to determine the cross-cultural validity of these adaptations, intervention bias would exist.…”