o - _.'e.'-.;: I . 4.12:; a? I“ IIIIIIIII Q95 .__ ‘o-I‘ I :4- _ 1 hu- !'3 .t - ‘5 1.5.11. 15? It“ man-v“ g-mmmmnWm—mmfiivm -‘ I ' 2? I3? 5. u I , I ' 3 ' ‘ ‘ x: i . _ 4 o -' . . J- - rt" 'f‘v’In . 0 Q 11 ; . ._...L - ‘ _ “' I“)? '23. 2'... I» I3 n}’*;uj§w51.m-L “r. "' U" ' "' I. ' A fi-OOJ .‘l'. _.. .. "yak-‘4. . I *4 —V-O: "4.“! “517%. 9H4..Lr ‘~ ‘:' ' . .7 r 01! -I " . ‘IIlfi‘fil' "3‘ i -. 7"."1". O o 0‘ Ile] _-"... .r-_I. L .1- V-f- u "‘r -- ‘ I Iu-I- I.“" u. E _ o tn: , .. .I. ' '~- *' 13f - 7""tw - g‘:- c '. I "" «bx-T. If. «at "-4 . 1 0" . ‘ I _‘ ‘3 Q . ...-.- ‘ ~90 _,. * Hf ¢ 0"‘0... .1v? "';?,-¢. A 3V?" H» "‘7- " ;-- a «1 v r.."'-u 1.x”. 0W1..j “I. *1. .I .: O o:- Jlm’:a «"71. I.. -v~ a “.i '_.- '. L - J ‘ "v- ‘3': "'fi‘. ‘I-.‘..$ " ~u". .; ‘_'~-..‘- .l .. u ‘ "‘ Ilrf'.‘ :p". {if I.:“ -o 1-} 'oI I 1““. 1 _ ‘ l 1 .~ _.'_L:.‘ , F ‘ - o w: II. " I - ' __.] . u . u~ cv- -""""":v _. :2 =9: w— ings: In“ I- .. '3 " I ' I‘ I I 1' L ‘ -471- ..t 191'?“R"s‘1. c ril o I ‘0‘ 0 f I . I o-- I ‘— o-‘ ‘ - .-¥ 1 u I I.. a, (I 1\ l o f ‘50 ”‘1- -- °-"' . b... «an». 1-" . g I. ‘ .0 x " .- _, .1-..- i' FLU. 'I-W _4t? I‘ _ I"I. ,. ._.& L: I ... ..~I- v.41.- n U. 34"} ~II . _ ‘0 .'.V 0" ‘_ _- .. .:_...'..._...I‘.‘I €E.- ;.I:' '-'.—.I-'::‘-'II.;-;OI1 .le Lat I: -.' . —‘n I. I" '0‘1-.‘. ‘ - ~ .- .5. o.. .Ilw‘r - .4 - : 'I.’ J'- ‘ L5.-. ---.II.1I.'\ 3;: II'II-IfIg... l' :1, . - :a-_ I 2 .L * 1 fl, .I. . 0- 4. ‘.u v_- I u-* I _ "-0 " ' I I: . ' V' ‘H‘QL- *' l-fi .-. .. .- -r 'L . arts-m --' ,..-.. ‘.:‘ ' 1 ‘- v- i ‘ O 'w"1"fl’ L ' ’~ old “ «“1- ..F -F¢H¢: " ' J'I 'I ‘ “' "HII "I “I..- .'. . . ‘ .I‘ --‘o— - .I.‘ - II . __'}‘I"-I "I I ’3‘"! H: ZIQ'- 2-25‘ A. 1 I I_ l r .i‘L d a II:- ‘ II ‘ IIwI - _'*'." I 3 III: " 'a—HG'JI'L: ".‘__ r :_ . l . o ..o r .1 HI ____-‘,":.1. .' II...- "I ' I _ I‘. _ .ll 0‘ 5" z 5-: H .J I -- Ii". - III 5'. «AI-y ‘ ‘ . 3- ‘ ‘. - ar- ~:‘»;.r. Ev" c;-:, I. '1' " '- v‘" I3‘ 00-..- T q [I I " II" t" IL... —I ":‘~..'.. . TI." I 'I‘ I~fl‘ .I ‘I. a -. I D I .-g ' . -- . 'I J.” ‘5' ' '- "I' - l' \ -o' -..Iw‘LI.hI“ ‘ . ' . 0‘ v r ‘ fi “. . . . ".‘° '2 .I‘- . w ' .. '.'.'..'I-.‘-' 1. -_:_' “I " ‘. I ‘ I ‘ I I "'3 '0 3 ' ~“‘ u...‘ to. ‘ a O -' .01.]: . ' I" .‘ LI. -.‘;‘-‘"“-"-- '— 50234,. . V fr. V I o ‘ l r- I. - ‘ -' _' . rl . ‘ ‘- .— ‘ II t‘ 0- I a I i". «‘"‘ “.‘I. . '0 °;.I§‘.I-.'.I-:.I II‘2If.‘ ' 0'... —-:":1...‘a'-' .:_':I;;;". 12" ' -_ -.-“: t ‘4... .. II II- I. o_- .0 v‘ _.I. . I $I4I 4,5 ”in...“ ‘Q3,"...' 1" I K»: o ‘w ’13.: '-"' a ’ o p " ' ' J ‘ I. .I ' o I‘. ‘ o 't I ' .nF act-'-".' ‘...'l-‘-—-‘>—,:-.u ':J‘(.OII . r l 0 I- II- I .,‘-.- I ' 0" If.‘ ".I fl: J :121.":‘I ~‘4 ”J I “ ‘ ‘ I I - . . a, .l u—0 7 ._' " ‘.I'I ' _I ' QFQJ _ “r . II- ‘ ". I '1 ° "'— I ‘— ‘ 'I' ’ "I o’c I1 I* ‘I 'P“ -‘| r... . ..' I“ a ‘ . i . I '. I J “l I ... I_ ‘ v .5 I a. 9.. pg.‘ ~l .J' J '1 'I' 'J': ‘I! I'L'S'W' “a“ In 7‘7NI- l J -'L;. 'I—.- c ‘ I . - 1"." Lk‘ II?“ II ‘ 0' ' II I.-‘.- I".. I. ‘L '.I'I' ‘.' .- P“ ' I - _ d o I I‘I '1. I'll" ;..'. It I.‘I~T: I“. ¢ T.'-.‘ II.II.-' r‘n‘.' "‘ I I. ‘ '1‘ II I“: I 4W“..- I‘ ’u' -—-II-p ' "' II 1- C ‘I. I I, I. -....-q.- 2w :1 I -- w . I ‘ . _ - » ¢ O :‘.| ‘ I . I -| 3" ~‘ I‘ '1 vaf‘ ‘u T“ - -.‘-" J *fll.‘ II} I'L’, . - .. J . — - ' '~ M -I .- I I I - I‘ovn .1" It“ I‘ '3‘ I .Ll-~Iu- .‘- 0.0; ¢ . III :‘J'I‘ .‘ . _ I 'n D _ . Q. ‘l‘ I 1' .1 I F- ‘ I- I r 4t.,'$'."‘"q:‘ a" - ff )‘oL " ' 1— n I . II I. '.“"‘° 0- I “If I! 'I I ru-i I... -- ‘ l”!- I;Q. o .1‘ ‘ .. ‘ I ' \II .: u ‘ 1" ’lC-I o - .v I. 1‘“ . ‘ I 7. t " . l I' .— ;—_- a .— Q n‘ . “:‘1- "l I '.— 1' | 'I .‘ o | “I" ,1. 0_ C I -"'I"" o I! O... _ . 4L - 0 - .0 .. L.‘ _- ‘0 'i .0" . l‘. 'v' nooflu- I I'II ‘.C|.'J:rI‘ :. .l.II.. . v - 0 I ‘I I | . I '4 t v.. | :. I.I>-‘Q 01—1». . '5 'II . ‘ _\ 3 ., I . .. _ u r _ - -,I I. I. 0‘. U’LI‘ ‘ I. .OI - i " -- I-“" y -.o- 'I $..' ' . I I Jr‘...‘ .' _. . . - .- ‘ - "- , c - .— .- .I . -. -. . .- .. .. . 2. HI: I w: . I r I-w, I I . ' I . ' I. t |- V‘ I _. .- o F I... -‘I . r8 _ I... ._‘ v-‘II I- . 'IIII . |_ _ a . — b _- - r. I .q- I t ;. 9 ‘1 t : II u- I ’ ' 'l ‘.I " ' ." .L.'- I. I 0“, ‘1 0 Q 0 p - . I it 1;" o :4 J .I .l .1 . I'VHE. " . . l 'I" I J 'J I I' I‘ 4 ta 0 "'“ ‘WI ‘ Q.-. II '. I‘ . . .l _ . . . _. :' ‘ ‘ o I. II . " I-I‘-I'O II -“V. .. l}_‘l’.:‘III.I '. . .' ‘. .II {LI-z J .- ‘ I I I ..T|'.' ' .C 1- I 7' I I I “I. I N l" I?:.“£I . = ‘L. I ._u...— 0 rd’.. IIII-'F.'.‘.' IIJ'"..II ‘ d i: ‘. rLfIT‘ui— -' — I | _ . . . "I: ‘ Q. . . a Ifl.u.,:‘l‘lt |":. .b _ h I" “ 0 W I .I.I I I" " I I I “J IHII I}! 0 II " OI.Y' I.II00 'l" I ! . n 5 L‘ '. | ‘ \II ' I ' ‘ ’. 'J 'I' 'I0 I; 1' II‘ I I 'I, In... .0 J {'In I11 - ' - " I . .. a b . . 3'. ' i I I .l ‘ I ." |-.| " '4. ’119‘ _.r 5" ‘III'I : I \' Il' . I; I If __ .' - La]? “1 u. «U "_ . I f .. ' ‘I I1 I n I I _ I‘- I I. — o— I — - I ' I .0 ' I I I III I “I“ 10f; ‘ '4? '0 "(It 'I U: ‘ o c , I _' . l . " I I I ’ ”c," .” .0 I PI 'I I.. l . I ' l‘” .‘ IoI I In 0‘ I L .0 ll “I I I"‘( 'll '4 ’- Q- ' . ' i III. A II. ‘ ‘ «I - II-I.' . -' ' I III ‘I-f".:-:I ‘Ic' " II' II - I I : i* I:- I I: I I. I I IIIIII| w. 'I ' .|'1I .-|r. 'II’I'I I‘ l. ’9' I. . i: II. I In I . III I l _II.I’ III...“ II‘II'I- IJJ J. l-‘ll I l . C I . II I . ‘I. I I I II II! I . T1, . .31. I II ' C ' II o . . I ' I. .-III'I’I'I.I;:_ I|.' 'I o I I II‘:"III1I'III‘II I " ‘A:a I..I “III! I I I .I II 40' ‘ . ' I35“ 'I “'I'UII II- - . . II I. . 5 . - I I: ""I PJI'III'I I' III' . '1' r” ya: IE." ’ - I .' . ' -.' ‘1‘! I a I I I III III :II. II'.‘ I 'I‘ lx"'III'” ‘ :"A'; L uni-{:2 I‘fi’m III III 35:3;- ‘ b 5 O a I - fl'v-I I- I'-'I . \l“h.. "I q‘II - JM - ‘ . 0". '1 ’ c 1111395 i a . -.I- ~ .- ‘ A“ y:_ ‘ .I‘. '5'} I“ ' r n ’ 4 g . - ' . é; . , ' l-zb ' '7‘ I ‘ ‘ . " ‘1 .. 1‘. .«u r r ‘ ‘L‘ _ 1293105271625 : —. _‘ a, This is to certify that the dissertation entitled COMPETENCE AND ACCEPTANCE: PERCEPTIONS BY FOREIGN CHILUREN AND PARENTS presented by ISOLDA DE ARAfiJo GUNTHER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in PSYCHOLOGY fawfl m Major professor Date l/lw. 43) HS’B r MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-127” MSU LlBRARlES ”— RETURNING MATERIALS: Piace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. COHPETENCE AND ACCEPTANCE: PERCEPTIONS BY FOREIGN CHILDREN AND PARENTS by lsolda de Arafijo GUnther A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiIlment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology I983 © Copyright by Isoida de Araujo Gunther 1983 ABSTRACT COMPETENCE AND ACCEPTANCE: PERCEPTIONS BY FOREIGN CHILDREN AND PARENTS by Isolda de Arafijo Gfinther This study investigated how six to twelve year old children, who have moved across cultural boundaries, view their new environment, and perceive their competence and feelings of efficacy in dealing with it. Further, the study tried to determine how the children's competence is being perceived by their parents, and how it is influenced by culture shock experienced by the children and their parents. Specifically, the study investigated any variation due to age, sex, cultural background, time since arrival, and time until departure. Five groups of children from Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea, United States, who had recently moved to Michigan, and sole representatives from ten countries (or cultures): Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India (Moslem), Nepal, Poland, South Africa (Black), South Africa (Indian), Sudan, Uruguay, as well as their parents served as subjects. Both children and parent were interviewed about their experiences related to the move and the new environment, including culture shock. Children were asked to respond to Harter 8 Pike's (1981) Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence end Acceptance for Young Children iPSPCAYC). parents‘ responses to an adaptation of this scale were also considered. To the extent that moves across cultural boundaries signify changes in the relationship between children and various dimensions of their socializing environment, it was asked how such children view themselves and their competence in relation to this ecological transition. The results of the study suggest: (a) differences between children of various backgrounds and sex in the peer acceptance domain of the -PSPCAYC; (b) generally negative correlations between perceived competence (PSPCAYC) and age and time variables; (c) few significant relationships between perceived competence (PSPCAYC) and parents' perception and culture shock variables - the significant ones suggesting (I) positive relationships between parental perception of children's competence and perceived competence (PSPCAYC), and (2) negative relationships between maternal acceptance (PSPCAYC) and child culture shock (acceptance of the new environment). One possible explanation which might be pursued in future research, is that the various groups studied showed differential competencies in the various domains - not only are they sensitive to the domains salient in their own culture, but they are also sensitive to the demands in other domains that are particular to the new environment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the support of the many peOple and agencies who made my Phd program and this dissertation possible. I am grateful to Dr. Ellen Strommen, the chairperson of my dissertation committee for her supervision and encouragement; as well as to the members, Dr. Ruth Hill Useem, Dr. Esther O. Fergus, Or. Hiram Fitzgerald, and Dr. John P. McKinney, for their guidance and professional time dedicated to this research. I thank Ms. Peggy Arbanas and Ms. Pat Heenan of the Office of Foreign Students and Scholars for their cooperation in obtaining information about the foreign student population at MSU. I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Saleh Assaf, Mr.Thalal Ohafar, Dr. Vincent Hoffman, Ms. Mary Rhodes, Ms. Kikuyi Saito, and Ms. Simone Carneiro Maldonado for introducing me to the foreign families. Special thanks go to Ms. Judy Callender, who conducted the interviews with the US families. To Drs. Kazuko Thornton, Velma Hildebrand, Maria Alice d'Amorim, and Hartmut GOnther, for their thoughtful comments and discussions. To Paulette Valliere for her support and advice. To the Michigan Early Childhood Center for their excellent care of my daughter, Luisa, throughout my studies at MSU. To Aurélio José de Freitas, friend and proxy, without whose intercession with the Brazilian bureaucray, I could not have stayed abroad as long as I did. To the Federal University of Paraiba and its Department of Psychology, who granted me the leave of absence for my studies abroad, as well as to the CoordenacSo de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), which made my studies possible. Last not least, my special gratitude to the children and parents, who allowed me into their homes and thus made this study possible, for their patience and cooperation. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................... . ........ ............ iv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ v INTRODUCTION ................................... ...... .. 1 Review of the Literature ............................ 2 Children's Contacts with Other Cultures ........... 3 Mobility .......... ..... ..... ..... ..... ............ 5 Psycho-Social Transitions ......................... 8 Social Competence ................ ..... ... ..... .... 9 Research Questions and Hypotheses ......... ..... ..... l7 METHODOLOGY ....... .......... ...... .. .................. . 20 Subjects .......... ........... .............. ....... .. 20 Subject Pool ...................................... 20 Subjects Interviewed ................ ....... ..... .. 2l Procedure ............... ............ ......... ...... . 2h Contact with Families ............................. 2A Place of Interview ................................ 26 Interview Situation ..... .............. ............ 27 Instruments .............. ............. .............. 28 Children's Questionnaire .......................... 28 Parents' Questionnaire ............................ 29 PSPCAYC ........................................... 29 Parents' Perceptions of Children's Competence ..... 31 Structured Questions Regarding Culture Shock ...... 32 Post Interview Observations ....................... 3h Analysis of the Data ................................ 3A RESULTS ................................................ 36 Characteristics of the Population Studied ........... 36 Children's Perception of Own Competence ............. ho Mean Item Responses by Cultural Background ........ ho Parent's Perception of Children's Competence ........ Mean Item Responses by Cultural Background ........ Cluster Analysis of the Scale ... ..... ............. Reliability of the Scale ...... .................. .. Culture Shock in Children .. ..... ........,........... Mean Item Responses by Cultural Background ........ Cluster Analysis of the Scale ..................... Reliability of the Scale .......... ....... ......... Culture Shock in Parents ............................ Mean Item Responses by Cultural Background ........ Cluster Analysis of the Scale ..................... Reliability of the Scale .......................... Testing of Hypotheses ......... . ......... .... ........ Comparisons by Cultural Background and Sex . ....... Correlations with Age and Time Abroad ........... .. Correlations between Competence and Culture Shock . DISCUSSION ................ ..... . ...... . ................ Influence of Cultural Background and Sex . ..... ...... Influence of Age and Time Abroad .................... Influence of Parents' Perceptions and Culture Shock . Qualitative Observations ............................ Limitations and Directions for Further Research ..... conCIUSions 0.0.......0.00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO REFERENCES ............. ..... ..... .......... . ..... . ..... APPENDICES ...................... ....... ......... ...... . A: Letter to Parents .. ...... . ...... .... ......... .... B: Parent Consent Form .............................. C: Foreign Child Interview Schedule ..... ..... ..... .. D: US Child Interview Schedule ...................... E: Foreign Parent Interview Schedule ................ F: US Parent Interview Schedule ..................... G: Post Interview Observations ...................... H: Sample Page of the PSPCAYC ....................... I: Reliability of the PSPCAYC ....................... J: Cluster Analyses: Correlation Matrixes and Boundaries ........................................ Al Al to 116 50 50 50 53 57 58 58 62 67 67 69 72 80 80 at. 91 9A 97 99 107 107 IOB 109 121 133 1111 1119 152 151. 158 Reliability Analyses K: Parents' Perception of Children's Competence ..... I63 L: Culture Shock in Children ................... ..... I67 M: Culture Shock in Parents .... ..... .......... .... I73 LIST OF TABLES Page Country and Age of Children of MSU Foreign Students .... 22 Children of Foreign Students and Scholars of MSU in One Elementary School in East Lansing ..... ....... 23 Family Characteristics of Respondents ...... ....... ~..... 37 Personal Characteristics of Respondents ................ 39 Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children - Item Means by Cultural Background A2 Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Competence Item Means by Cultural Background ........ ...... ..... A3 Summary of Reliability Analysis ....... . ............. h9 Culture Shock in Children: Item Means by Cultural Background ........ ...... ..... SI Reliability Analyses: Cluster l2 ...... .............. 55 Reliability Analyses: Clusters l3 and IS ............ 57 Culture Shock in Parents: Item Means by Cultural Background ........ . .......... 59 Reliability Analyses: Clusters l6 and I7 ............ 6A Reliability Analyses: Clusters 18 and 20 ............ 66 Mean Item Responses of A Major Scales of the PSPCAYC by Cultural Background and Sex ......................... 68 Spearman Rank Correlations between A Major Scales of the PSPCAYC and Age at Arrival, Age when Interviewed, Time since Arrival, and Time until Departure ........ 7i Spearman Rank Correlations between A Sub-Scales of the PSPCAYC and 3 Sub-Scales of the PPCC ........................ 73 and 5 Sub-Scales of the Parent Culture Shock Scale .. .76 and 3 Sub-Scales of the Child Culture Shock Scale ... 77 iv LIST OF FIGURES Harter's Refinement of White's (l959) Effectance motivation Formulation .0.........OOOOOOOOOOOO0...... l6 Cluster Analysis: Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s competence one...eoeeoooeeoooeoeoeoooeeeooeoeeeeee oooooo 1‘5 Cluster Analysis: Culture Shock in Children ............ 5A Cluster Analysis: Culture Shock in Parents ........... .. 62 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The objective of the present study is to investigate how young persons, between the age of six and twelve years, who have moved across cultural boundaries, view their new environment, and how their competence in dealing with it is perceived by both children and their parents. Although one of the conditions of human life is the need to adjust to change, upraating is often a drastic way by which this need may be met: a geographical and cultural move implies distress due to the separation from one's accustomed social, cultural and environmental support systems. According to Coelho 5 Stein (l980, p. 2b), incaanztsggiety% ggoslgxare likely to experience psycholo- he immediate social gectggyggcgnusggvicgggggtocgggfi $2 pgrgggingnbecause of war or natural disaster or forced The fact that the effects of relocation may (e.g., Dien 8 Vanake, l96h: Huhr, I972) or may not (Cottrell, l978) necessarily cause psychological problems for children will not be the primary focus of the present study. Rather, the focus will be on how such children view themselves in relation to the ecological transition they go through. Bronfenbrenner (I979, p. 27) defines ecological transition as both "consequence and instigation of developmental processes", and adds that an ecological transition happens when the person's position in the ecological environment is altered as a consequence of a change in role, setting or both. More specifically, the objective of the study is to consider how six to twelve year old children perceive their cognitive, I physical and social (peer and maternal) competence vis-a-vis the new environment. Further, the study will determine whether there is any variation depending upon age at and length of time since arrival, as well as length of time until returning home. _An attempt will also be made to determine if the perception of competence varies in children from different cultural backgrounds. At this point, several important issues can be identified, but only the first three will be addressed directly: I. Is the ability to cope with a new environment influenced by cultural background and sex? 2. Is the age at the time of the move; the age at the time of the interview: the Ien th of time since arrival: as well as length of time left until eparture. related to the present ability to cope with the different environment? 3. Are the children's perceptions of their own competence related to the parents' percept1ons of their children's competence, as well as to the cu ture shock reported by the children and the parents? A. Does the ability to assimilate new experience depend upon the relative similarity between the home culture and the new surrounding? 5. Is there an optimal degree of difference between the two cultures and an optimal age at arrival to facilitate the development of competence to deal with the new culture? l.l Review of the Literature Moving from one culture to another has been studied in a variety of populations, who have moved under a variety of conditions, considering a variety of circumstances for and effects on the individual, group of individuals, and social context into which the move occurred. Examples of the populations studied are immigrants, refugees, students, expatriate workers, missionaries, military dependents, to name but a few. Conditions of moving from one culture to another include war, trade, fleeing natural disasters, and social upheavals. Circumstances for and effects .on the individuals or groups include psychological variables, such as adaptation, adjustment, coping, competence, self-ac- tualization, mental health, cognitive development, socialization, psycholinguistics, psycho-social transitions and children's perceptions. Sociological perspective deal with such aspects as mobility (social or geographical), migration, acculturation, race and ethnic relations, while anthropological studies deal with acculturation, adoption of cultural practices and changes in populations as a result of migration. Coelho C Stein (l980, p. 26) summarize the situation of the uprooted, identifying what they called "sources of stress", as follows: I. the need to change behavior patterns and learn new ones: 2. the difficulty in communicating both verbally as well as non-verbally; 3. the. loss of sensory contact with a familiar physical enV1ronment; A. the rate demanded in.the adaptation, to the extent that the process of. adaptation has. been com ared to the process of primary socual1zation from b1rth to ado escence. Although we agree with David (l980) when he points out that adaptation and coping with diverse forms of sociocultural, envnronmental, economic, and physical stress are not the rovince of any one d1sc1pline, research or1entation, or 1deology (p. Bl). the following review of the literature will emphasize a psychological perspective. Futhermore, as the objective of the present study is to examine children's perceived competence to deal with a new culture, the review will refer to studies that consider (a) children's contacts with other and their own culture, (b) mobility, (c) psycho-social transitions and (d) competence. l.l.l Children's Contacts with Other Cultures Piaget 5 Hell (l95l) suggest that only at age 8 to lo did Swiss children fully comprehend what national group they belonged to, and only then could they express their ideas about foreign peoples. According to these authors The feeling and the very idea of the homeland are by no means the f1rst or even the.early elements in the chi d's makeu , but are a relat1vely late development 1n the norma ch1ld, who does not appear to be drawn Inevitably toward patr10t1c sociocentr1c1ty. On the contrary, before he atta1ns to a cognitive and a fective awareness of his own. country, the ch1ld must make a considerable effort toward 'decentration' or broadening of his centres of interest (town, canton, etc.) an toward integration of his impressions (with surroundings other than his own in the course of which he ac u1res an understanding of countries and points of view ifferent from his own... The child begins with the assumption that the immediate attitudes ari51ng out of his own special surroundings and activities are the only ones possible: This state of mind ... is at first a stumblin -block both to the understanding of his own country an to the development of objective relationships with other countries. Furthermore, to overcome this egocentric attitude, it is necessary to train the faculty for cognitive and affective inte ration ... a slow and aborious rocess, consisting main y in efforts at 'reciprocity' (p. ) 3 Although Piaget's general theory of cognitive development contends that the genesis of the mechanism of knowledge is due to (a) maturation, (b) learning on the basis of experience, (c) social transmission, and (d) equilibration: Piaget 8 Neil, in the article mentioned, make more explicit mention of a possible influence of cultural determinants such as socialization, and geographical mobility, while schooling is not explicitly mentioned. The fact that the subjects of this l95l study were all Swiss children, presumingly submitted to the same socializing environment consisting of people of the same race and class, may account for what Piaget and Hell called "late development in the normal child", i.e., late comprehension about what national group they belong to. Later, Piaget wrote an article entitled Heed and significance of cross-cultural studies in genetic psychology in which he points out: Psychology elaborated in our environment, which is characterized by a certain culture and a certain language, remains essentially conjectured as long as the necessary cros cultural materials have not been gathered as contro (197 . p. 12). This latter aspect is presented by Lambert 8 Klineberg (I967) who studied children's views of foreign peoples in various countries. They state that while the preschool child learns to interact with the social world, he also learns often painfully that the private feelings of attachment he has for his own familiar and comfortable settin s are not necessarily shared by those who belong to various social subgroups within his own nation and even less so by stran eps or by people who ive in foreign countries (p. 2 2 I.l.2 Mobility Turner C McClatchy (l978) state that many researchers agree with the fact that change of home can be a traumatic experience for the young child [though without specifying what 'change of home' refers to], and that the mobile school child faces difficulties and may be distinctly disadvantaged when compared with more stable children. However, the same authors point out that there is less agreement with respect to the long term effects of mobility. For some researchers, most children seem to settle down, after facing the initial problems related to a move. Other studies appear to point to the harmful effects of mobility on the future academic success of the child, due to persisting psychological effects such as feelings of insecurity. Because geographic mobility is one of the characteristics of contemporary society (Cottrell, l978; Triandis, l980: Werkman, I979). and since studies dealing with the effects of moving on children and adolescents appear to be inconclusive, more work in this area seems to be of relevance. The first problem that one sees in an attempt to search the literature, is the lack of a generally accepted definition for mobility. The studies range from those presenting no definition of mobility, to others that define mobility as changes in aspects in the life of the child (Ritchie, I965), to those considering the number of schools attended (varying from attendance in one, two, three and more schools). Other studies use as the criterion the number of districts, cities, states. Some aspects of moving have been found to be influential on the child. Pretzlaff (l969) states that long distance moves appear to be more likely to bring about difficulties. What does this mean? Is there a correlation between distance in terms of miles and feelings of difficulties? Our assumption here is that the issue in question is probably linked to the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between the two environments, the demographic composition of the new area, whether or not the child remains within his family circle (Coleman, I968: Duster, l97A), or the presence and age of siblings (Long, 1975: Whalen s Fried, l973). According to these studies, what are the aspects that facilitate and/or interfere with the well being of the child? What is the importance of parent's attitude? It appears that there are families that are aware of possible difficulties for their children, and these make an effort to prepare their children for them. Several authors (Becker, I973; Falik, I966; Whalen 8 Fried, l973) consider the effect of such preparation to be crucial for subsequent adjustment. Turner 5 McClatchey (l978) state that this need for preparation is probably related to parental attitudes to the move. In some studies (Duster, I97A; US Govt, Dept of the Army, I975) it is claimed that the effects of mobility on the child are by-products of the effects on the mother. Wooster 5 Harris (I972) controlled socioeconomic status and found that mobile children had less social orientation and adjustment than non-mo- biles. Long (l975) did not control SES and found that academic achievement of mobile pupils was higher than that of non-mobiles. Although it was pointed out that psychological problems will not be the primary focus of this study, and, considering that assessment of the children's adjustment before and after the move is not realistic for this study, it appears, however, that the pre-existing level of emotional adjustment may be the more reliable predictor of the effect of the move on the child. Dawson (I969) reports that children with a history of higher or lower level of mobility score lower on tests of self-actualization and achievement than children with a moderate history of mobility. A positive correlation between self-esteem and maladaptive behavior is reported by Becker (l973). Several authors (Falik, I966; Owen, l97l; Ritchie, I965: Strickland, l970) call attention to the previous level of emotional adjustment as a factor for successful adjustment of moving; and other researchers (Coleman, I968: Duster, l97A) point out that, given a positive adjustment of the child prior to the move, and that the child remains within his family, few ill effects will occur. Gibson (l973) studied the effect of mobility on the reading performance of children from military families and found that it becomes worse with age and in turn affects other aspects. Gibson makes a distinction between literacy and oracy, and suggests that such children develop oral skills and confidence as defense, but are not able to translate spoken words into written symbols. Another part of the mobility research considers third culture kids (Useem 5 Downie, I976), an international population which has "loosened its ties to a home country, yet has not totally become integrated into the host country" (Werkman, l979, p. I78). Missionary and military families who have lived overseas for considerable periods of time were also the focus of many of the studies in the area of mobility. Large numbers of reports (Dayton, l9AO; Gordon 8 Gordon, I958: Malzberg 8 Lee, I956: Tietze, et 9],, l9A2; to cite a few) suggest that mobility is linked with psychiatric problems among adults and children. The children of military families, or, as they are sometimes called, children of 'service' families (Turner C McClatchey, I978, p. A6), are a case in point. However, Pedersen C Sullivan (I96A) caution against the tendency to consider repeated family relocation as "an etiologically significant factor in and of itself in the development of emotionally disturbed military children" (p. 578). David (I980) states that there is a- growing recognition that cultural, social, economic and technical changes are inflicting stress upon the structure of families, and their ability to adapt to new environments (Coelho et 3]., l97A). However, much less is known about conditions facilitating normal development and competence in children who live in environments where the language and culture of the majority are not their own. In sum, how are those children that move able to cope with the challenges that they confront? For Turner 8 McClatchey (l978), "the effects of mobility may not be a matter of degree: it may be advantageous to some, disadvantageous to others at different times" (p. A9). If so, what makes this advantageous or disadvantageous? Some authors (Janis, IA79: Lazarus, I975) consider that the effectiveness of their coping mechanisms depends on the perception of the threatening or promising elements in the situation. It appears that emotional and social support which is available and used (Adams 5 Lindemann, l97A), motivation and readiness to respond to the environmental challenge (Mechanic, l97A) are two aspects of great importance, and will, therefore, be considered in this study. l.l.3 Psycho-Social Transitions In a paper directed to the conceptual issue of the so called crises or loss research, Parkes (l97l) advocated a new field of study, Psycho-Social Transitions. Parkes pointed out that such ”situations [psycho-social transitions] are seen as turning points for better or worse psycho-social adjustment” (p. IOI). The author points out that changes usually take place in what Lewin (1935) has called the life space, which encompasses our interpretation of our past experiences, the expectations of the future, "everything we know or think we know" (Parkes, l97l, p. IO3). Parkes' proposition seems to be a departure from the traditional disease-oriented research made by clinical psychoanalysts, social psychiatrists and psychologists, and appears to have gained acceptance recently (Bogat, Jones 8 Jason, l980: Ginter 5 Felner, I979: Primavera, Ginter, Felner C Cauce, I979). Parkes considers that in dealing with crises, the most important aspect may be the individual's ability to cope with the process of change, which occurs in one's life space. Bogat et a]. (I980) stress that when encountering transitions, the individual who conquered initial anxiety usually gains information about the situation and develops new patterns of behavior. This need to modify old patterns of life and adopt new coping styles in order to solve transitions is also considered by Hirschowitz (I976). Because individuals are active receptors of sensations from their life space, they are impelled to give up, or keep old views of themselves and/or acquire another view. They do this by reaching out to their environment and "sampling it" (Parkes, l97l, p. IOS). Thus, life transitions, such as the loss of a mother or mother substitute by young children (Bowlby, I960, l96la, l96lb); temporary separation from the parents (Robertson 8 Robertson, l969); moving to a new environment (Bardo 8 Bardo, I980); entering school for the first time (Coddington, I972: Klein 8 Ross, I965): moving from one school setting to another (Bower, l96A; Ginter C Felner, I979): entering a new school (Bogat et 8].. I980): or pregnancy (Leifer, I977) may affect personal relationships, familiar environments, possessions, physical and mental capacities, roles and status (Parkes, I97l). Wolfenstein (I957) reports that changes related to loved possessions such as home, backyard, favored pets, toys or any other collections may perpetuate fears of further losses. Parkes stresses that the lack of ability to perform according to social or personal expectations makes individuals give up the old view of themselves and acquire another view. He refers to reactions to the present life space ”by moving within it, to keep it the same or to change it" (Parkes, l97l, p. l05). One may say that children who moved from other countries may experience changes not only in one of the areas cited, but in several, or even in most of them. Hence, what are the ways in which children react to these changes? How do such children view themselVes in relation to the transition they go through? This study will examine whether they consider certain aspects of their life to have changed, such as the language they speak, the food they eat, the clothes they wear, the place they live in, and the behaviors that are expected of them at home and at school. Further, considering that they are confronted with such new situations, how and/or from whom did they gain information about the new situation, how did they cope with it? l.l.A Social Competence The next step will be to provide a conceptualization of social competence, placing emphasis on the integration of socio-cultural differences. Dinges 5 Duffy (1979) claim that there is relatively little research linking competence and culture, and in a broad l0 characterization they add the psychological research tradition had emphasized 23%;?23213313? l2§$E§i°2§aSItlélafiéisi§3u§§£‘33r2"3n ER: ideal person who embodies the cultural norm (p. 209). At this point, two aspects need to be stressed: (a) in the United States, a complex, changing and pluralistic society, there appears to be a lack of agreement on the definition of competence, (b) there seems to exist a lack of emphasis in research on culture and competence in a broader sense, and more research dealing with the culture of the school as such. Although one can agree that there must be scientific reasons for this, it also implies that some difficulties in an attempt to integrate sociocultural differences into conceptualizations of children's development of social competence will appear. Dinges 8 Duffy discuss whether the concept of competence is used as a new conceptualization or is synonymous with other concepts which provide less difficulties in their operationalization. The same point is made by Heath (I977) who states that terms such as competence, mental health and self-actualization, all of which imply effectiveness of functioning, may be aspects of the concept of maturity. One of the reasons why Harter's conceptualization of competence will be considered below is that her approach does allow for the integration of socio-cultural factors. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the problem of metapsy- chology embedded in the concept of competence. Although we agree with Berry's (I975) relativistic position that there are no general criteria of cultural or behavioral excellence, we are trying to study foreign children's adaptation to a given environment. This means that a child is perceived as being socially competent or incompetent in the context of specific roles and value judgements that are not familiar to them. The dominant group which determines social competence (or incompetence) of the child has changed. Thus while foreign children in general, and children of foreign students in particular [I], and are not necessarily part of the minority group of this society (though many feel they are ll treated as such), the problem pointed out by Laosa (I979) may apply equally to them: for many minorit children the sociocultural context of the home and neigh orhood is different from that of the 1.22;"315'??? ani‘iilfiii’éfi‘s’f".nciflflinshiiif‘s’éfioglWET“? if” The author considers that although non-minority children also experience some sort of discontinuity, the discontinuity of minority children is greater and more abrupt. Adaptation is, in this context, a key concept, and functional adaptation to aspects of the environment is what "enables the person to operate effectively" (p. 27l). The issue here is that the minority child probably deals with two or more sets of functional adaptations, something that may also be assumed to be the case with foreign children, such as the ones of this study. Our question is to see what happens when young persons are uprooted, i.e., move with their parents to a different environment and have to renegotiate the various demands of the new environment, (given they are not the same.) Goldfried 5 D'Zurilla (I969) suggest that from a Western perspective, the notion of competence has a relatively long history. They quote Socrates as the ultimate source, whose definition of competence was Those who manage well the circumstances, which is accurate in meeting occasions as they arise and rar ly miss the pggedient55 course of action (apud Goldfried D' Zurilla, 999 p° The research concerned with competence and competent behavior may be divided into the following three orientations: (a) personality trait orientation, (b) self concept autonomy orientation, and (c) drive instinct motive orientation. [I] While foreign students are generally part of their respective countries' cultural elite, .some 0 them are still part of their tauntrteg' 'minority' , as is the case of the South African families of is s u y. l2 I.l.A.l Personality trait orientation This orientation attempts to isolate certain dimensions of personality upon which individuals may vary regarding the amount of a trait (characteristic) they might have. The major theorists of this orientation, including Cattell, I965: Eysenck : Eysenck, I969; Guilford, I959, produced a good deal of research related to these theories. There appears to be a continuous debate in the psychological literature with respect to the role of traits in understanding and explaining human behavior (Argyle & Little, I972: Epstein, I977). I.l.A.2 Self-concept autonomy orientation This orientation emphasizes the organism's active striving for mastery over the environment. Argyal (I9AI) views the human being not as a mere reactive organism but as an active agent striving for mastery over the environment. Kardiner (I9A7) postulated an effective ego, with an autonomous energy source, which is more positively directed to successful rather than conflicting experiences. Hartmann (l950) conceptualized the autonomous factor in the developed ego that mediated instinctual drives and environmental demands. Erickson (I952), although accepting Freud's ideas, sees his own theory adding to them. Culminating the apparent discontentment with the instinct-drive motive theories, created the concept of ego identity and a "sense of industry". Allport (1937) called attention to the functional autonomy of motives, Goldstein (I9A0) to the tendency to self-actualization which was later strengthened by Maslow (l95A) and Rogers (I96I). In sum, each of these theorists represent particular variations of the general theme of this orientation, which views humans as internally determining dominators of their environment, as opposed to purely reactive organisms. 13 I.l.A.3 The drive instinct motive orientation This orientation is influenced by Freudian drive theory which gives emphasis to physiological views of human behavior. Groos (I90l) postulated that humans have a need for producing effects in his example of the child's 'joy in being a cause'. Hendrick (I9A2), on the basis of the drive to do and to learn how to do, suggested an instinct of mastery. Fenichel (I9A5), rather than putting emphasis on an instinctually based component, associated the reduction of anxiety of mastery over the environment. Mowrer (I950) continued with the position that the motivating element in ego development was anxiety reduction. Dollard 5 Miller (I950) proposed their concept of drive and attendent reinforcement theory. Even though White (1959) stated that the drive theories, as well as Freud's psychoanalytic instinct theory, were inad- equate as models of human and animal behavior, he is considered the most prominent representative of this position (Dinges 8 Duffy, l979, p. 2Il). White not only considered the achieved capacity of competence, but also referred to competence as a motivational concept I'because it satisfies an intrinsic need to deal with the environment (I959, p. 3l8). He points out that “the drive formula seemed to me seriously inadequate to account for the ceaseless activity, play and exploration that are so obvious in young animals and in young children" (l979, p. 7). He asks, why are young creatures always busy, instead of sitting back and waiting for the next episode of hunger and/or discomfort? He considers that this activity must have served in evolutionary history, because by making explorations and by playing, young animals increase their knowledge and competence about the environment. For White, being effective, being able to have effects "seemed to be the heart of the problem" (l979, p. 8). Another very important point for White is that the sense of competence is rooted in one's own action, "has to come from within" (p. 9). and the motivational aspects of competence, referred to IA as "effectance" [2] is the ”organism's capacity to interact effectively with the environment" (I959, p. 297). Probably because he considers his effectance motive to be universal, White seems not to pay attention to cross-cultural aspects, and although on a physiological level one could argue that his theory is verified cross-culturally, the question that remains is whether it encompasses the issues involved in the term competence. A contemporary version of the self-concept autonomy theory is presented by Harter (I97A, I975, I977) who seemed to consider White's conceptualization quite useful in her early research. However, as this author stated, "it soon became apparent that effectance motivation, as presented in the broad brush strokes of White, had little explanatory value, little predictive power" (l98la, p. 2l6). Harter's criticism refers to two problems: (a) White's concept did not concur with operational definitions, (6) it was not clear how to put White's formulation to an empirical test. In spite of this, Harter agrees that the appeal of a “motive that impels the organism toward competence is obvious and compelling" (l98la, p. 2l6). Thus, she decided to refine and extend White's model. In a I982 paper, Harter clarifies the meaning of the term intrinsic in her model. Harter considers the term intrinsic not as referring to the type of basic biological property postulated by White (I959). Rather, she used this term to refer to an experiential process whereby motivational and informational functions once extrinsic to the child are pagelfig‘d tpg Sporateg; such that they become internal to Harter calls this second source internalized motivation, contrasting it with the “more basic effectance like motivation for which the term intrinsic is more appropriate” (p. l8). Harter's statements of the issues that her scheme must address are presented (l978) and summarized (l98la) as follows: [2] Referring to the neurogenic 'energy' derived from the living cells that constitute the nervous system. 15 I. The view of effectance motivation as a lobal or unitary construct is challenged by the consideration of the possible components of this.motive system. These possible components must be examined within a developmental framework: 2. The effects of failure experiences on the components of effectance motivation must be examined; 3. The conceptualization of intrinsic pleasure as. a result of suctess is challenged as success results in feelings of efficacy. An additional component is added, namely the concept of optimal challenge, i.e., successful mastery attempts which provide an o timalOdegree of challenge produce the greatest sense of satisfaction; A. The role of the socializing agents must.be considered, as well as direct attention paid to the functions of reward and their effect in this system: 5. The effects of reinforcement over time must be considered in order to clarify the internalization process by which self-reward and mastery goals are internalized; 6. Extrinsic motivation andOthe relative strength of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation orientations must be examined: 7. Correlates of these motivational constructs such as one's perceived competence or self-esteem, or one's sense of control must be addressed. Harter's refined model (l98la, p. 2l8) is reproduced in Figure I. The left outer circle of Figure I presents a diagram of ontogenetic changes with positive outcomes, resulting in a relatively intrinsically motivated individual. The left side of the figure also presents a picture of optimal development as a consequence of the individual's environment jointly with "his or her natural desires toward mastery" (I98la, p. 220). Thus the intrinsic motivation constitutes the major determinant of behavior. Negative outcomes are presented in the right hand side of Figure I. These outcomes are the ones that will produce an extrinsically oriented individual. Her extended model considers that the reinforcement history has implications for the motivational orientation, for perceived competence, as well as for the sense of control over the outcomes of the individual's life. The refinement of the model led to another challenge: the search for appropriate measures. Harter apparently faced three alternatives, (a) l6 Figure l Harter’s Refinement of AMite’s (1959/ Effectance Abtivation Formulation , MEI/fl! “COCA”! /_/ \....\ Knaivto Lac-i or net "ICIIVID CMYICCI/ TI! CITINL ICIPYIOI .i-irsaim. unecono- . or con caveat 0' COHTIOL \ "IDOL \cwau‘lct. \ / succus l sees-sues on ‘ cuttmLizM’IOI 0' unseat: (e) QILV- oceans 81! VII 1 “' .ppqom Ii menses tel lust!" GOAL! nutter “not?! coemnvl ”OIL "'8' CIL (I... My “serum \ ‘33:...“ / \ met/"ammm “I? 1.010. IYIV I INVOICE-(IT OR LACK OF IIIMOIC‘ 3:.OV:L "OI IND! PERMIT ”I”IOVOL POI OIDIKIOIDY CASTIIV ATTIIPYS 9 IOOIUIO OF ADPOOflL Q “sun 5771"?! L!" 0' IIII'OICIICIT “WIDE-7 '0' DIPCIOIICY POI ADULTS MI MN Q coastline or aisarenovat 9 iron sensuous: WM“! use existing measures, even though they appeared inadequate, (b) to devise new scale(s), or (c) "to remain content to sit in our armchairs flauting our flow diagram and mumbling pedantically" (I98la, p. 22A). Harter opted for the second alternative [3] and three years and A000 children later had arrived at a first scale: the Perceived Coupetence Scale for Children (Pcsc) (Harter, 1981a). 17 The PCSC assesses the child's sense of competence in three domains: cognitive, social and physical. A subscale called general self worth, orthogonal with the other domains is also included. At the theoretical level, Harter (l978) refers to a model of intrinsic motivation in which the central point is one aspect of a child's sense of self, i.e., perceived competence. Perceived competence is viewed as a correlator and mediator of the ”child's intrinsic motivation to be effective, to engage in mastery attempts” (Harter 8 Pike, l98lb, p. l). According to these authors, at the applied level, this scale has diagnostic utility and can be used for both clinical and educational assessment. The PCSC is a measure for elementary school and junior high school pupils. Subsequently, and based on the PCSC, two versions of this scale were developed for young children: (a) for pre-schoolers and kindergarteners, (b) for first and second graders. These two versions, named the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC) determine competence in the same three areas as the PCSC: cognitive, social and physical. However, the social area in these versions includes, besides perceptions of one's peer relationships, the child's perception of maternal support and acceptance. Further reference will be made to the PSPCAYC in the methodology chapter, on page 28 below. l.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses In sum, the present study will consider how six to twelve year old children, who have moved across cultural boundaries, view their new [3]. though seemed to have some regrets: “We chose the second strategy, to invent what we could not discover, and embarked on a venture with e appropriate balance of knowledge and ignorance. I say ignorance, because if we had known back then.what is required to.construct.adequate instruments that met the preV1oust gaised objections, we might well have opted to pedantically mumblel" ( 9 la, p. 2 A) l8 environment and perceive their social, cognitive and physical competence in dealing with it. Further, this competence, as perceived by the parents, will be considered as well. The following variables will be examined through the use of questionnaires and interviews: I. The children's perception of culture shock, through a scale adapted for this study: 2. The children's perception of their competence in areas outlined by Harter 5 Pike (l9 la), i.e., cognitive, physical, and social (maternal and peer); 3. The parents' perception of culture shock, as well as its effects on their children, through a scale adapted for this study; A. The parent's perception of their children's competence, specifically sOC1§I competence, through a modification of Harter's scale (l9 la) l.2.l Research Questions The following specific research question are posed: I. Is there a relationship between cultural .background and perceived competence, as measured by the Pifitoriel izete of (ggggtygp? Competence and Acceptance for oung l dren 2. Is there a relationship between sex and perceived competence? 3. Is there a relationship between age at the time of the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence? A. Is there a relationship between age at the time of the interview and perceived competence? 5. Is there a relationship between length of time since the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence? 6. Is there a relationship between length of time until return to home country and perceived competence? 7. Is there a relationship between the children's perce tion of their own competence, and the parents' perception o their children's competence? 8. Is there a relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the parents' culture shock? 9. Is there a relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the children's culture shock 19 “l -2.2 Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses are, accordingly: I. H 0 There. is no relationship between cultural. background and perceived competence, as measured by the Pifitoriel izqge of l rceive Com etence and Acce tance for non dren (ASPCAYci. p p g H 0 There is no relationship between sex and perceived competence. H 0 There is no relationship between age at the time of the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence. H 0 There is no relationship between the age at the time of the interview and perceived competence. H 0 There is no relationship between length of time since the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence. Ho There is no relationship between the length of time until return to the home country and perceived competence. H 0 There is no relationship between the children's perce tion of their own competence, and the parents' perception 0 their children's competence. Ho There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the parents' culture shock. H 0 There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the children's culture shock. CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY The study was conducted at Michigan State University. At the time of fall registration I982, there were approximately I6AO foreign students from 70 different countries among the A0,000 students. Most foreign students that are accompanied by their families, as well as many US students and foreign faculty live in university housing in three distinct neighborhoods. Two elementary and one middle school of the East Lansing school district serve these university housing areas. Consequently, most of the children of foreign students and faculty, as well as many children of US students attend these three schools. The percentage of foreign children at the two elementary schools, Spartan Village and Red Cedar, was in excess of 502 and A02 respectively. Hannah Middle School reported approximately l52 foreign students, East Lansing High School 22. Many foreign students with children report that the support provided by these school is an important reason for choosing MSU. 2.l Subjects In order to test the hypotheses stated above, five groups of children and their parents were interviewed in their homes. 2.I.l Subject Pool Foreign Children. Information provided by the Office of International Students and Scholars at Michigan State University indicated that there 20 2] were I6AO foreign students enrolled in the fall term of I982. Table l presents a summary of the information that was available regarding the children of these foreign students. Given the interest in studying six to twelve year olds, this table presents the number of children born in I969 and before, in each year for I970 through l976, and in I977 through the present. Further, it indicates the number of families in which the six to twelve year old are divided. In an effort to corroborate the information provided by the MSU foreign student office, an attempt was made to obtain the number of children of foreign students enrolled in the two elementary and the one middle school of the East Lansing School District which serve the population in question. Table 2 presents data from the one school that made these data readily available. As is obvious from the data presented in the two tables, there is no consistency as to the number of children from different foreign countries in the community. In part, this is due to the fact that some students live outside the East Lansing school district, in part because information was not available from all three schools. Further, there are some visiting professors with families, whose children are not included in Table l. US Children. Information provided by the University Apartments Office at Michigan State University indicated 79 US families that had moved to MSU since the spring of I982, and were living in two-bedroom units (which implies the presence of children). 2.l.2 Subjects Interviewed Since representativeness could not be established, it was decided to study families from Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia, who represent homogeneous groups with a large number of children, as well as a group 22 Table I Children of Foreign Students at A50 by Country of Origin and Age Year of Birth SUM Families Country <1969 70 ll 72 73 7A 75 76 77+ 70-76 70-76 Afghanistan I I 2 2 Australia I l 2 2 Bangiadesh l ? é I Brazil 2 l I 2 I I I I l 8 Chile . 2 0 Columbia 2 l I I 2 l Cyprus I l I I 20m Rep l I 2 I 0 g DY Gam ia l 3 0 Greece I l 0 2 I Guyana I O 0 Honduras I 3 I I India 0 0 Indonesia I I I A g I Iran A 2 I5 2 Iraque I2 0 O Israel I I I I t 2 3 Japan I I I 2 l I Jordan I l I 2 Kenya l I I Korea 2 I 2 l I 3 2 Kuwait 2 A lela. I l I Raian. 3 3 2 2 I8 2 a aysia Mali I O 0 Mexico A O 0 Namibia I 0 0 Nepal. l I l I 2 l Nigeria l l 2 I ? ? Philippines I Turkey 0 8 Saudi Arabia l 2 2 2 2 5 32 IA South Africa I l I I Sri Lanka l O 0 Sudan I I l O l Taiwan l I l I I2 2 Thailand I I I l Uruguay 2 O 0 Venezuela I I I 3 I Yemen 2 0 Zambia 3 I A 3 2 TOTAL 20 9 I2 I7 l2 l8 IO 23 220 IOI 6A of families who were the sole representatives of their respective countries. The rationale for the selection of the groups is linked to the source of support available to the children: (a) strong group 23 Table 2 Children of Foreign Studehts of #50 in One Elementary School in ast lensing Country Number of Students Korea IA gapan I Qth Brazil Taiwan Israel Malaysia Ethiopia India Philippines WW «Pl-”WM countries with 2 each I countries with I each support in the case of the Saudi children who even have their own school: (b) presence of group support due to sufficient numbers of children in the Japanese and Koreans; (c) lack of group support in the case of children who are solitary representatives of their respective countries or cultures; and (d) staying within one's own culture in the case of the US children. Furthermore, it is the researcher's understanding that there are no studies with children of foreign students as subjects. Forty-seven children (2I female, 26 male) and their parents participated in this study,'as presented in Table 3 (cf. page 37). The selection criteria were the following: (a) both parents from the same country, (b) at least one child between the ages of six and twelve born in the same country as the parents, (c) in the case of more than one child in this age group, only the eldest was interviewed, (d) in the case of foreign families, the intention to return, and (e) in the case of US families, having moved to Michigan since the spring of I982. 2A 2.2 Procedure 2.2.I Contact with the Families In the proposal for this study, the following was stated regarding the procedure: Once families are identified2 they will receive a letter cf. Appendix A page IO ) 1nV1ting them to participate. he letter will be fel owed by a telephone call. In the case of families agreeing to participate, a time will be set, and the researcher will visit the family at the agreed upon time. While this general procedure was followed, there were some notable variations among the groups of respondents: 2.2.I.I Saudi Group From the end of October to mid May, contacts were cultivated with a member of the board of AI-Farook Elementary School, which is maintained by the Saudi Arabian Education Mission. Saudi children attend this school [A] in addition to attending public school. During this period of time, clarifications about the purpose and procedure of the study were made, and finally, names and addresses of Saudi families were obtained. Once this contact with the Saudi families was established, there were no difficulties in receiving collaboration from them. [A] The school apparently is open to ehildren from other Arab speakin countries: in addition, there is said to be another Arab schoo maintained by Libya. 25 2.2.I.2 Japanese Group Access to the Japanese population was initially gained through the Japanese Club. An explanation of the study similar to the one provided in the letter to parents (cf. Appendix A) was translated and published in the quarterly newletter of the Club. Furthermore, a list of the club members as of Winter quarter I983 was provided. The investigator was not aware, however, that the Japanese school year begins during the Spring, and that families with school age children return to Japan at that time. Thus, only three families with six to twelve year old children were located from the club list, all of whom agreed to participate. These three families, in turn, provided names and introductions to other families. All but one Japanese family, with children appropriate for the study, present at MSU during the Spring and Summer terms I983, were included in this study. 2.2.l.3 Korean Group A list of Korean families was obtained from the MSU foreign .student office and the Korean club. Letters were sent to those 2I families, who, on the basis of their address and other information, could be presumed to have children, though not necessarily of the appropriate age, place of birth or intention to return home. Yet, it was surprising that upon telephone contact, only one family admitted to having children here and agreed to participate in the study. This one family opened the door to two other families, one of which, in turn, indicated two other families. The remaining two families were found after the researcher had been legitimized through a Brazilian colleague of Korean descent, as well as with the help of a US professor with contacts in the Korean community. All Korean families who met the criteria established above are included in the study. 26 2.2.I.A Sole Representatives of Countries Thirteen families, being the sole representatives of their respective countries (or cultural groups within the country) were identified through the help of the foreign student office, the English language program of the United Ministries in Higher Education, neighbors, friends, and colleagues. Ten families, from the following countries, agreed to participate: Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India (Muslim), Nepal, Poland, South Africa (Black, Indian), Sudan, Uruguay. Three families refused to participate. 2.2.I.5 US Group While the University Apartment Office provided 79 names and addresses, only l2 families were found to meet the criteria listed above, and testing was completed with only l0 families. One family declined participation. In the case of another family, the research assistant decided not to complete the child's interview, after the parents explained that the child is two years behind in school due to attention span problems. 2.2.2 Place of Interview On the basis of contacts with teachers of foreign students in elementary and middle schools, as well as with foreign parents and children themselves, it appears that children are taught at school that they 'are all the same' regardless of race, religion, or cultural background. This seems to suggest that the school is a 'neutral' place, where the children learn how to behave according to the norms and expectations of the East Lansing environment. In contrast, the home may be considered a place where the child explicitly retains his/her singular cultural characteritics, neither being from here, nor (necessarily) staying here. 27 This consideration is part of the reason for interviewing children in their homes. A second, practical consideration regarding the place of the interview relates to the difficulty in interviewing the children at school, namely those of a bureaucratic nature. Thirdly, since a parent was interviewed as well, the researcher had to go to the home anyway. 2.2.3 Interview Situation The interview proceeded through the following steps: I. Introduction and meeting the famil : ex Ianation of the purpose of the study: explanation of t e vo untar consent form and signing of the same. (cf. Appendix B, page I 2. Interview of the Child. I. uestionnaire, as presented in Appendix C (page I09) or ppendix 0 (page l2l), for foreign and S children respectively. 2. Presentation of the Pict rial S ale for Perceived Competence and Acceptance for goung Children. 3. Interview of the Parent. In the case of intact families, the preference expressed by the couple determihed which parent was 1nterViewed. The reasons for the chOice were noted in the Post-Interview Observations (Appendix G, page IA9). uestiennaire, as resented in Appendix E (page I33) or ppendix F (page IAI , for foreign and US parents respectively. A. Closing remarks, thanking the family for their participation, making arrangements to communicate a summary of the results to em. 5. After Ieavin the .family, com Ietion of the post interview observations TAppendix G, page IA9). In order to assure authenticity of the interviews, two interviewers were used. Pareek 8 Rao refer to authenticity or accuracy in interviews as the ”capacity of the interviewer to get unbiased and genuine responses from the respondent" (I980, p. I28). According to these authors, four major dimensions affect authenticity of interviews: (a) interviewer background (the relevant dimension to present concern), (b) interview and its setting, (c) respondent background, and (d) cultural background. The investigator who is a citizen of a country other than the US, conducted the -interviews with foreign children and their parents. A North American, senior student in Psychology at MSU conducted the 28 interviews with US children and parents. 2.3 Instruments Two interview schedules were developed by the investigator, one to be used with the children, one with the parents. Exploratory questionnaires for children were developed initially on the basis of a review of the literature. This instrument was tried out with a group of seven children of foreign students, none of whom participated in the final study. In light of the outcomes of the pilot interviews, as well as upon consultation with experts in the field of foreign student study, the instrument was modified and retested with another group of ten children and ten parents, who also did not participate in the final study. In addition, Harter's PSPCAYC was used with the children, and an adaptation of Harter's Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom was used with the parents. Furthermore, an adaptation of a series of structured questions developed by Thornton (I979) was used with both children and parents, and, finally, a post interview observation scale was prepared. 2.3.I Children's Questionnaire A copy of the questionnaire for the children is presented in Appendix C (page IO9) and D (page l2l) for foreign and US children respectively. The questionnaires cover the following topics: I. INTRODUCTION - Initially, an attempt was made to explein the scope of othe study at a leve adequate to the children's comprehension. The importance of the eubject under stud was emp asized, and consent to record the interview was solicited. 2. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - Developed with the purpose to establish (apportt_with the respondent. The questions cover personal in orma ion. 3. SECTIONS dealing with (a) coming to the USA or to Michigan, {bi food, (c) Ian uage, (d) clothes, (e) playing, (f) home, g friends, and h) school. A. a SECTION with a series of structured questions which are adapted from Thornton (I979). Thornton selected ten com onent variables, considered typical as symptoms of culture shoc "on 29 the basis of the researcher's interviews with, nd observations of foreign children and adults in this country USA]” (p. 50) To the extent that the purpose of the present study was to investigate the children's erceptien of competence in the new enyironment, questions re ated with feelings of pleasure, enjoyment and happiness were included as well. 5. a SECTION askin the childrn to indicate three things liked and disliked in t eir new environment. These responses were matched to the information provided by the parents. 6. a last SECTION soliciting sug estions for a friend from home coming to East Lansing. Imp iCitly, children's perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of liVIng in the new environment should e revealed. 2.3.2 Parents' Questionnaire A copy of the questionnaire for the parents is presented in Appendix E (page l33) and F (page IAI) for foreign and US families respectively. The questionnaire covers the following topics: I. INTRODUCTION - explaines the scope of the study once more to the parents. 2. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - to establish rapport. The topics covered deal with personal background of the family. 3. a SECTION of more systematic information about the family, and the family members' moving experience. A. a SECTION with a series of structured questions, similar to those asked of the children. Questions related to the parents' concern with their children's ability to s eak their native language, as well as future re-entry difficu ties were added. 5. a SECTION soliciting suggestions for a friend from home - similar to the one aske of the children. 6. a SECTION asking about things the child does and does not like. 7. the modified Harter scale, examining parents' perceptions of their child's competence. 2.3.3 PSPCAYC After a search of the literature for possible scales, The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC), as developed by Harter and Pick (l98la,b) was selected. This scale was developed for first and second graders. The decision to use 30 this scale was made for three characteristics of it: (a) an implicit assumption in the scale's construction that perceived competence is not a global or unitary construct, (b) because the emphasis is on the child's perception of his/her own competence, and (c) given the potential problem with fluency in English, as well as the inherently greater interest value of pictures (at the end of an already lengthy interview). Thus, this version was used with all children through the age of twelve. The PSPCAYC assesses the child's feeling of competence in four different domains: cognitive competence, with an emphasis on academic performance (doing well at school work, feeling good about one's classroom performance): physical competence, with a focus on sports and outdoor games (doing well at sports, preferring to play sports rather than merely watch others play): and. social competence, with regard to (a) peer relationships (having a lot of friends, being easy to be liked), and (b) maternal emotional support and acceptance (mother cooks the food child likes, mother likes to talk with the child). A sample page of the PSPCAYC is presented in Appendix H (page l52), a complete list of the items ispresented in Table 5, page A2. 2.3.3.l Reliability of the Scale Subscale reliability was reported by Harter (l98la, p. 9I) for the Perceived Competence Scale for Children. working with Groups of children in various parts of the US, both a coefficient alpha, testing internal consistency, as well as test-retest reliability were determined. "Across all samples, reliabilities [alpha] range from .75 to .83, .75 to .8A, .77 to .86, and .73 to .82 for the four subscales [cognitive, social, physical and general self-worth], respectively". The test-retest reliability coefficients were .78 for the cognitive subscale, and ranged from .75 to .80, .80 to .87, and .69 to .70 for the social, physical and general self-worth subscales respectively. For the PSPCAYC Harter 5 Pike (l98lb) report that coefficent alpha was determined, ranging between .A6 and .79 for the four subscales. They suggest further that by combining the cognitive and physical subscales 31 into one competence subscale, and the peer and maternal subscales into one acceptance subscale, the reliability increases to .6l and .85 respectively. Considering that in the present study, the PSPCAYC was used with a group of foreign children, between the ages of six and twelve, the reliability tests were repeated. Cronbach's alpha and standardized alpha were computed for each of the four subscales: cognitive and physical competence, and peer and maternal acceptance. Details are presented in Appendix I (page ISA). The reliability coefficients alpha were .80, .60, .8l, and .AA for the cognitive competence, physical competence, peer acceptance and maternal acceptance scales respectively. 2.3.A Parents' Perception of Children's Competence Besides the PSPCAYC, there were other developments based on the original PCSC. One of these is the Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom. This scale was used as a basis for a Parents’ Perception of Children’s Competence (PPCC) scale. developed for the present study. An effort was made not to use a two-choice format (true - false) in order to avoid socially desirable responses. The scale ranges from I - not very much to 5 - very much. This version is composed of IA items, as presented on page I39 (Foreign Parent Interview Schedule), and on page IA7 (US Parent Interview Schedule). As may be seen, there is a large number of questions dealing with peer relationships. This was proposed as an attempt to restrict the parents' perception to the domains of their home and neighborhood. During the adaptation of this scale, ten couples responded to it in trial form. Peer relationships were considered to be the most reliable parent perception, since parents may or may not be well informed about school activities. As Harter (I982) pointed out, peer popularity seems to be "directly related to the pupil's skill in sports" (p. 95). With respect to the one item in the general self-worth domain, it was introduced as an attempt to contrast with one question in the interview, which states, "Do you ever need the help of your child(ren) in social 32 situations?" Considering that many times, the children's proficiency in the second language appears to precede and be superior to their parents' proficiency, this item was intended to determine if a negotiation in relation to independence occurs. Another aspect that needs to be mentioned refers to the degree of convergence/discrepancy between a child's perceived competence and an index of "actual" competence. According to Harter (I982, p. 96) this is "an interesting empirical question in and of itself". However, in neither Harter's original work nor in the present study is the issue directly addressed. 2.3.5 Structured Questions Regarding Culture Shock Two sets of questions, one for children, the other for parents, were adapted from a Culture Shock Scale developed by Thornton (I979). Thornton defines cultural shock as “incapacitating reactions experienced upon encountering unfamiliar culture-bound situations" (p. 50). The Culture Shock scale was part of a broader questionnaire whose primary objective was "to gather information which describes the overall conditions of education of foreign children in the selected East Lansing public elementary and middle schools" (p. 6). Thornton reports that satisfactory face validity for the instrument was achieved through comments and reactions of various experts and professionals, and that the questionnaires were pilot tested. The children's version was tested with seven 9th grade and six 3rd grade foreign students of the East Lansing schools: the parents' version was tested with nine foreign students attending advanced reading classes of the English Language Center at Michigan State University. The children's version originally contained ten components focusing on feelings of loneliness, isolation, anxiety, and longing for the home country. The items were selected and accepted as referring to typical symptoms of culture shock "on the basis of the researcher's interviews with and observations of foreign children in this country" (p. 50). The reliability of this ten item scale, using Cronbach's alpha, was .7I. 33 2.3.5.I Children's Version The adaptation of the children's version for the present study maintained the components focusing on feelings of loneliness, isolation, anxiety and longing for the home country. Because not only incapacitating reactions, but also feelings of competence were considered in the present study, the present version resulted in l8 items. For example. besides the item "Do you ever feel that you do not have any friends“, the following item was added, ”Do you ever feel that you have a lot of friends”. Items relating to feelings during class discussions or strict classroom interactions were substituted by items related to feelings of loneliness or happiness at home, English proficiency, preference for native language versus English, and the desire to play with children from the home country. The style of the items was modified so as to fit the interview format of this study. Again, face validity of the scale was obtained through comments and reactions of experts and professionals, including the creator of the original scale, as well as through pilot testing the scale with ten foreign children. A list of the items is presented on page II7 (Foreign Child Interview Schedule), and on page I28 (US Child Interview Schedule). 2.3.5.2 Parents' Version The original parents' version of the culture shock scale contains l2 items. The instructions differ from those of the children's version, in that adult respondents were asked if they perceive their school aged child(ren), their spouse, and themselves to experience any of the reactions for a prolonged period of time. The selection criteria and face validity were the same as in the children's version. Reliability coefficients were .788, .795. and .750 for the respondents' children, the respondents' spouse and the respondents themselves respectively. A 3A list of the items of the adapted version, which contains 2A items, is presented in Table I36 (Foreign Parent Interview Schedule), and on page IAA (US Parent Interview Schedule) with correspondingly less items. As in the children's version, negative and positive items were used, their style modified to fit with the interview format. Face validity was established as in the children's version; again, this scale was pilot tested with ten foreign couples. 2.3.6 Post Interview Observations Lastly, in Appendix G (page IA9) a post interview observation schedule is presented, used as soon as possible after having left the home of the family being interviewed. The last part of the post interview observation schedule lists a series of questions adapted from the Preschool Observational Scale of Anxiety (Glennon s Weisz, 1978). as presented on page l50. It was used to register children's expression of anxiety. Although this scale is developed as a "way of assessing situationally induced anxiety in children who are too young to accurately report their internal states” (p. l2A6), it was used here because some of the foreign children may not be sufficiently fluent in English to express themselves when interviewed. 2.A Analysis of the Data Major independent variables considered were the five groups being compared, length of time since arrival and length of time until departure, as well as sex and age. Major dependent variables were the responses to the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC): Parents’ Perception of Children’s Competence (PPCC). an adaptation of the Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom (Harter. l98lb): as well as to culture shock scales for children and for parents, adapted from Thornton (I979). 35 2.A.l Reliability of the Scales For the PSPCAYC, face validity was accepted as reported by Harter 5 Pike (I98lb). Subscale reliabilities were recomputed, because a population with different characteristics was used. Since the other three scales constitued major adaptations of previously published scales, cluster and reliability analyses were undertaken, in order to determine viable subscales. These analyses are reported in the next chapter. 2.A.2 Testing of Hypotheses Considering the fact that the total number of subjects of the study was relatively small, and, furthermore, that no random or representative sample could be taken, non-parametric statistics were used for the testing of the hypotheses. The first two hypotheses call for group comparisons, which were done with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. The remaining seven hypotheses call for relationships, which were established with Spearman rank correlations. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The presentation of the results is divided into six major sections. The first presents descriptive data, summarizing the characteristics of the population studied. The next four sections deal with the four scales used in this study (the competence and culture shock scales for children and parents respectively). Since three of the scales, the Parent's Perception of Childrens' Competence, as well as the two culture shock scales, were adaptations of previous versions, additional analyses were done to determine their suitability: Cluster analyses of these scales were conducted to identify meaningful subscales; reliability analyses determined the appropriateness of these subscales. In the last section, the results of the testing of the hypotheses of this study are presented. 3.l Characteristics of the Population Studied Table 3 presents an overview of the distribution of the respondents in terms of characteristics of their families, and table A presents an overview of the distribution of the respondents in terms of personal charcteristics. Children from A7 families, and one or both of their parents participated in this study. 36 37 Characteristic Number of Families Parent Interviewed Father Mother Both Number of thildren 2 2. Mean Number Arrival (I months before intervi les: than - l ii::i more han 36 mean months Planned Departure (I months afte lest tzan - l2 l - 22 2 - 3 more than 3% mean mont s don't know Occupation - Father Student Post-Doc/Fec Absent Occupation - Mother Student Post-Doc/Fsc Non Univ Work At Home Table 3 Summary of Faaily Characteristics of Respondents Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary US Total 10 1o 7 10 10 A7 1 1 12 2 2 i i 3 i8 - 2 - 8 i i i l i 'i 3.6 2.2 2.9 2.2 2 0 .6 ew) ? I - - A 2 A i - - 13 i 1 1 6 5 11 g 1 1 1 : g 21.9 9.5 15.7 21.8 12.6 1 .A r interview) - 6 - 2 1 p 1 a. - - - - 5 i 1 : 2 i 1 3 l 1 i 33.8 y.8 2t.h 1;.A B tu.6 '9 - i i i ii - l - 1 2 A g i s i i 3 7 7 7 l i 30 3.l.l Family Characteristics Of these famllies, ten were from Saudi Arabia, ten from Japan, seven from Korea, ten were the sole representatives of their respective 38 countries (or cultural groups within the countrY) with children, and ten were US families who had recently moved to Michigan. Discounting the four single parent families, half of the parent interviews were conducted with the mother, twelve with the father, and ten with both parents. The Saudi group constituted an exception in that more than half of the interviews were conducted with both parents. Considering the parents' occupation, it may be noted that all fathers were either studying or working as post-doctoral fellows or faculty, while nearly two thirds (3l/A7) of the mothers indicated that they were staying at home. Six others indicated non-university related work. Four of the families (two from the US, one each from Japan and the solitary group) were single parent families. Considering the length of stay in Michigan prior to the interview, it may be noted that about 202 of the respondents had arrived within the past six months, and more than half within the past year. The mean time in Michigan prior to the interview is longest for the Saudi and solitary groups (nearly two years), least for the Japanese group (less than one year). Considering the time length of stay in Michigan after the interview, it may be noted that of those who had an idea about when they would leave, about one fourth were leaving within the next three months (one Japanese, one Korean, and one solitary family left within the week after the interview). The mean number of expected months remaining in Michigan was highest for the Saudi group (nearly another three years), the lowest for the Japanese (less than one year). Twenty-one of the children interviewed were female, 26 were male. Among the Saudi, Japanese and US groups, more boys were interviewed: among the Korean and solitary families, more girls. 39 Table A Summary of Personal Characteristics of Respondents Characteristic Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary US Total Number of Families ID ID 7 ID ID A7 SexFof thild Interviewed 6 21 115i: ° 2 i A i 26 A h ' t ' d ge (w en énygzyiewe )E g i g g 3 l ' i I 13 2 1 i - 1 11 i 1 : - 1 Mean Age 9.7 6.2 8.3 9 O 7 7 .6 8' th 0 d "mother a 5 a A a 2 Middle t - - 1 - Youngest g l 2 I No Sibling - ' 3 3 A ' 1 ge (.t<=rA';:ais l l - l 2 2 E 2 t A 2 2 13 8 2 - I 2 - 1 - t 1 3 1 1 2 1 g 1 1 1 1 - 1 11 2 1 : 2 1 1 'Meen 7.9 7.A 7.0 7.2 6.7 7.2 3.l.2 Respondent Characteristics As Indicated In the selection criteria (cf. page 23) at the time of the Interview. the children were between six and twelve years old. As shown in Table A, the mean age is hlghest for the Saudi children with 9.A years, followed by the children of the solitary families (9.0), the Koreans (8.3), Japanese (8.2) and lastly the US families, with 7.7 years. Families with between one and five children _were encountered. None of the Saudi and Korean families had less than two children, none A0 of the the Japanese or US families had more than three. The mean number of -children is 3.5 among the Saudi families interviewed, 2.9 for the Korean, 2.2 for Japanese and solitary families, and two children among the US families. Considering the birth order of the children, 27 were the oldest, four were neither the oldest nor the youngest, eight were the youngest, and eight had no siblings. Considering the age of the children at the time of arrival in Hichigan, all of the children interviewed were four years of age or older at the time of arrival. More than half were between the ages of four and seven, the mean age for the total group being 7.2 years. The Saudi children showed the highest mean age, with 7.9 years, the US children the lowest with 6.7 years. 3.2 Children's Perception of Own Competence In the following, results of the application of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC) will be presented. This scale is comprised of two dimensions: general competence and social acceptance; the former includes cognitive and physical competence, the latter peer and maternal acceptance. A sample page of this scale may be found in Appendix H (page 152). As may be noted, the scale ranges from "l" - not very competent to "A” - very competent. Following the indications of the authors of the scale (Harter 8 Pike, l981b), the results will be presented in two steps: (a) means are presented for each of the 2A items in Table 5, (b) items are grouped and scores for the four subscales are presented in Table lA. In each case, means are presented for all subjects, as well as broken down by cultural background. 3.2.] Mean ltem Responses by Cultural Background A comment needs to be made regarding the cognitive competence subscale. Table 5 presents means for each of the 2A items of the PSPCAYC. Items C Al number two to five, involving school, reading, writing and spelling, elicited spontaneous responses on the part of some of the foreign children in the sense that they differentiated between the US school and their home school. While some of the children who so responded did not go to school at home prior to coming to Michigan, the children of the Saudi group attend their own school besides the US public school, while in the case of the Japanese group, parents follow the Japanese curriculum at home while in the US. As may be noted from Table 5, item means for all subjects range between l.87 and 3.75. The means are generally higher (3.02 to 3.75) for the cognitive and physical competence, as well as the peer acceptance, than for maternal acceptance (l.87 to 3.30). The means for the cognitive competence items referring to the native environment range from 3.38 to 3.77. 3.3 Parents' Perception of Children's Competence In the following, results of the application of the scale of Parental Perception of Children’s Competence (PPCC) will be Presented. As was indicated on page 3l, this scale was adapted by the author from the Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic arientation in the Classroom (Harter, l98lb). Considering that this new parents' scale lacks any indication as to structure and reliability, a cluster analysis as well as a reliability analysis were conducted. 3.3.l Hean Item Responses by Cultural Background Item means are presented in Table 6 for all subjects, as well as broken down by cultural background. Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis [5] one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the groups. The items are presented in the order suggested by the cluster analysis below. The A2 Table 5 The PSPCAYC: Aban Item Responses by Cultural Group Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary USA Total Cognitive Competence Good with Numbers . 0 Knows things at school 0 .03 .A0 .A0 .A0 Knows things at school (FR) 2% (8) ° 0 (3) 22° :50 :2? 2 (6) 3 10 350 :3: 43:22:32 I§ 3 3 Reading by her/himself . . A Reading by her/himself (FR) . 0 (1o) . (9) Writing words . z . o (10) z 3 Nriting words (FR) (9) DIPOCDONIOO eardrum—o— Spelling words I .g . .2 3:30 :2 3:11;." 2:22: (m it) as m :23 <3) .... zaé Physical Competence Swin ing by her/himself 2°60 . 0 .3; . 0 . 0 . c11 ing . o . o . . o . o . Bouncing the ball .10 . 0 .A . 0 .A0 . Skipping . 0 . 0 .A . 0 .70 . Run as . 0 . 0 .i . 0 . 0 . A Jump rope . 0 .50 . . 0 .l0 . 0 Social Competence - Peer Relations Friends to la . O . 0 .IA A.00 . 0 .A0 Kids share {oyz with 3.20 3.80 2.29 3.l0 3.30 ;.A5 respondent Friends to play ames_with 2.30 .20 .A .20 .A0 .50 r ends on t e ayground . . . . . . F i h p 0 0 l0 A0 Getstgskeg.§o p ay with 3.50 30 . .50 .90 .0 o er 1 s Kids wangdtotsit next to 3.60 3.00 3.29 2.80 2.60 3.0A respo en Social Competence - Atternal Acceptance N. allows respondent to eat 2.30 2.30 2.29 2.A0 2.00 2.26 dinner at riends house N. takes res adent to 3.50 2.50 3.00 3.20 3.l0 3.06 aces 1 e N. gooks preferred food g.A0 2.80 3.lA 2. 2.90 3.02 . rea s o respon en . . . . . . N d t d t 0 l 0 l 2 2 0 H. allows res ondent to l. 7 2. 0 l. 3 l. 2.20 l. staz overn ght at friends h use H. tal s with respondent 3. 0 3.00 3.29 2.90 3.50 3.30 item response scale ranged from "I - not very much" to "5 - very much". [5] The Kruskal-Nallis one way analysis of variance is a non-parametric test, based on the rank order of the individual subject scores. Unless otherwise noted, all group comparisons are computed with this statistic. “3 In general, no significant differences were found between the groups on the the with item PHl3 a significant difference was found in the sense that parents of Korean and items of scale. However, respect to solitary children agreed less often that “my child's friends are mostly from our own country". 3.3.2 Cluster Analysis of the Scale Considering ‘the limited number of subjects (n - A7). as well as the theoretical assumptions underlying a factor analysis, it was decided use the cluster analysis to determine the to internal structure of the H7 fly fly fly fly fly H7 H7 HY Hy Hy HY Hy Hy PPCC: Aban Item Responses by Cultural Group child seems to like living in East Lansing child seems to like school child likes to do school work child likes new activities child's friends have mostly a different natinality child likes sports child prefers to'figure out problems on herhis own child enjoys being with friends child prefers to play in snorts, rather than watch c ild relies on others for help and guidance chi d has difficulties in making friends child prefers to play alone child prefers to watch, rather than play in sports child's friends are mostly from our own country i - not Table 6 Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary USA PH01 A.22 A.80 A.71 PH02 A.60 A.50 A.A3 PH03 A.10 3.60 A.A3 PH12 A.80 A.20 A.57 PH05 A.20 3.11 3.A3 PH10 A.30 A.50 A.71 PHOA A.20 3.90 3.A3 PH08 A.90 A.10 A.57 PHlA A.00 A.20 A.29 PH06 2.80 2.80 3.57 PH07 1.10 2.60 1.71 PH11 1.20 1.70 1.A3 PH09 2.50 2.10 2.00 PH13 2.70 3.60 2.A3 very much --- 5 - very much A.80 5.00 A.00 A.10 A.60 A.60 3.90 A.80 A.50 3.00 2.00 1.A0 1.90 1.30 A.30 A.20 3.60 A.60 3.30 A.30 3.A0 A.60 A.60 3.00 2.10 1.90 l.60 2.90 Total A.57 A.55 3.92 A.A5 3.76 A.A7 3-79 A.6o A.32 3.00 1.92 1.53 2.02 2.60 AA scale. The BHDPlM cluster analysis of variables program (Dixon 5 Brown, 1979) was used to analyze the data. This analysis is based on a measure of similarity or association between the variables. In the present analysis, the actual value of the correlation is used to this end, while the maximum distance methOd was used to form the clusters. The results of the analysis of the Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Competence scale are presented in Figure 2 . The numbers in the cluster diagram represent the recoded measures of similarity, i.e. values of the correlation [6]. "The first number in each line is the measure of similarity of the variable to the left of the line with the one immediately below it, the second is with the second variable below it, etc." (Dixon 6 Brown, 1979, p. 627). A formal cluster is determined on the basis of the similarity of any two clusters of variables. '"Initially, each variable is considered a cluster comprised of one variable. At each [subsequent] step, the two most similar clusters are joined to form a new cluster, until a single cluster is obtained that contains all the variables" (Dixon 5 Brown, 1979, p. 623). The clusters are demarkated by horizontal and diagonal lines. The following clusters are suggested by the results of the analysis: Cluster 1 is comprised of items PHOl (child seems to like living in East Lansing) and PH02 (seems to like school). Cluster 2 is formed by items PH03 (likes to do school work) and PHIZ (likes new activities). Cluster 3 includes items PH05 (friends have mostly a different nationality) and PHlO (likes sports). Cluster 4 involves items PHOA (prefers to figure out problems on her/his [6] For reasons of space, see Figure A, page 62 , for the scaling of the correlation values. AS HY HY Hy Hy HY Hi H7 H7 Hy HY HY fly H7 H7 iota: Figure 2 PPCC: Variahle Cluster Analysis child seems to like living in East Lansing child seems to like school child likes to do school work child likes new activities child's friends have mostly a different nationality child likes sports child prefers to figure out problems on her/his own child enjoys being with friends child prefers to play in sports rather than watch child relies on others for help and guidance child has difficulties in making friends child prefers to play alone child refers to watch, rather than p ay in sports child's friends are mostly from our own country PHDl 89/66 A3 57 60 A5 50 A9/6A 51 52 S3 A}// PH02 /7A A8 57 57 60 69 A3/A9 A2 A3 A9 3;// / / PH03 67/66 65/5A 63 A9/55 27 35 A7 25/ PH12 /61 58/61 51 55/A5 28 33 53 A;// PHOS 89/62 62 65/51 A3 38 AA 1;// / / / PHIO /5A 57 7}/56 51 23 37 29/ PHDA 6;/6§/§3 A5 36 Al 33/] PN08 /6§/38 38 A5 38 2;// PHlA /AA A9 36 15 39// ...... 253.371.5137 / / PHO 6A/ 2 61/ 7 / 5 / PHll I61 6;// PNO9 63// PH13 // Tree printed over correlation matrix (scaled 0 - 100). ustering is by maximum distance method. own) and PHOB (enjoys being with friends). Cluster 5 adds to cluster A above. item PNIA (prefers to play in sports rather than watch) Cluster 5 consists of items PN07 (has difficulties making friends) and Phil (prefers to play alone). A6 Cluster 7 adds item PH06 (relies on others for help and guidance) to cluster 6 above. Cluster 8 is formed by items PH09 (prefers to watch sports, rather than play) and PH13 (friends are mostly from own country). Besides these eight ”elementary" clusters, the results of the cluster analysis suggest additional, larger clusters, formed by the elementary ones: Cluster 9 formed by cluster 2 and 3. Cluster 10 formed by cluster 9 and cluster 5. Cluster 11 based on clusters 7 and 8. 3.3.3 Reliability of the Sub-Scales The results of the cluster analysis of the scale Parents’ Perception of Children’s Competence present a division into some eight 'elementary' clusters, which may be combined such that the division may be reduced to three distinct, major clusters. Each of these major clusters defined a subscale of the Parents’ Perception of Chi ldren’s Competence. The strategy for testing the reliability of the subscales suggested by the cluster analysis is as follows: Initially, all the items in the major clusters are considered to be a subscale, whose reliability is tested. Next, the items of the minor clusters that compose a major cluster are considered to be a subscale and are tested for reliability. The objective is to find the largest number of items, i.e. the largest cluster, that makes up reliable subscale. A summary of the results is presented in table' 7, complete results are in Appendix K (page 163). A7 3.3.3.l Perception of General Adaptation The first of the three clusters, number 1, consists of two items: PHOI - child seems to like living in East Lansing and PH02 - child seems to like school. Therefore, only the correlation coefficient between these two items is considered. As may be noted from Appendix J-l (page 160), the coefficient is r - .6l (n - 37, p < .01). On the basis of these cluster and reliability analyses of the Parent’s Perception of Children’s Competence. scale. the following subscale. General Adaptation, is accepted: I. PHOI - seems to like living in East Lansing 2. PH02 - seems to like school 3.3.3.2 Perception of Social Competence The second of the three clusters, number 10, consists of seven items; the reliability coefficient alpha is .69. As the item-total statistics suggest, six of the items contribute positively to a scale suggested by cluster 10, while one of the items (PH12 - child enjoys new activities) does not add to the overall scale (i.e., the reliability coefficient would increase slightly to .69 if the item were deleted). As the cluster analysis indicated, cluster 10 is composed of two clusters, 5 (consisting of three items) and 9 (consisting of four items). Separate reliability analyses indicate a reliability coefficient alpha - .62 and .65 respectively. All three items contribute positively to cluster 5, while item PH12 distracts from cluster 9 (deleting the item would increase the reliability coefficient to .67). On the basis of these reliability analyses, this second subscale, Social Competence, is formed by the following items: 1. PH03 - likes to do school work 2. PH05 - friends have mostly a different nationality A8 3 PHIO - likes sports A. PHOA - likes to figure out problems on her/his own 5 PH08 - enjoys being with friends 6. PHlA - prefers to play in sports rather than watch As suggested by the reliability analysis, item PHl2 (child likes new activities) was excluded from this subscale, as it does not contribute to its reliability, nor does it add to it conceptually. Furthermore, rather than dividing these six items into two subscales, they are kept together, because, on the one hand, the overall reliability for the six items is better than the reliabilities for the two scales, and, on the other hand, there appears no conceptual justification to separate the items. As may be noted, the six items in this second subscale relate to three domains pointed out by Harter: cognitive, physical and social. As they do not form different subscales, it leads to the same problem pointed out by Harter (l981a, p. A) with respect to the PSPCAYC, where Harter's own conceptualization of domains was not confirmed. 3.3.3.3 Perception of Peer Acceptance The third cluster, number ll, consists of five items: the reliability coefficient is .AA. While four of the five items in the scale contribute positively to the reliability, deleting item PH06 (relies on others for help and guidance) would increase the reliability to .50. Considering only cluster 7, which contains a subset of three items of cluster II, a reliability of .362 may be observed: again, deleting item PHO6 would increase the reliability of the scale with the remaining items. Based on these reliability analyses, the third subscale, Peer Acceptance, is formed as follows: i. PH07 2. PHll - prefers to play alone has difficulty making friends 3. PH09 - prefers to watch, rather than play in sports A. PHl3 - friends are mostly from our own country A9 Table 7 PPCC: Summary of Reliability Analyses ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED F ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER IO ) EH? E :6 8 lizagl :§§I in? g :55: III; :2 5 :"3: 2 ice 12.12 3;: pint 2 IAAA TIIEBI I o ALPHA I .68975 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I Reliability Analgsis for 6Scale ( CLUSIER O9 ) i 1 £23 e e e e NI'JF—IN .685A6 ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED H0 .13.22A PHI l2. A g Z. El “03 .2 .l g A6 PHO 13°00; 2 . A2 .3; A99 PHI 1 .3 9 6130 . 27 . 3 J5 ALPHA I .6A737 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .6AA9O Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 05 ) PHOA .88 2. 5 .AA] .210 .A PH08 .133 2.§ E .AA2 .2l2 .Aéé PHIA .5 2. 5 .383 .IA7 .5 ALPHA I .60271 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I 62036 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER II ) PHO6 . A6 I .2 -.01 .0 O .A 6 PHO .381 8.A6§ .fi36 .11A .2 Z PHI . IA 3. l . A .l 6 . PH09 . ll . 02 .21 .Iég .33; PHI3 .A32 7.530 .25 .I . ALPHA I .39012 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I AAIAS Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER O7 ) PH06 ‘ .2 2. .102 . .A08 PHO 2.332 2.§82 .lgg .082 .21 PHI A. 5 3. 09 .2 .099 .09 ALPHA I .30657 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .362A9 As suggested by the reliability analysis, item PHO6 was not included, since the conceptualization of the scale. This subscale may be it detracts from the reliability of the subscale, as well as from seen 85 a 50 complement to the Peer Acceptance subscale of the PSPCAYC. 3.A Culture Shock in Children In the following, results of the application of the structured questions regarding culture shock in children will be presented. As was indicated on page 33, this scale was adapted by the author from Thornton's Culture Shock Scale (1979). Again, since this new version lacks any indication as to structure and reliability. both cluster and reliability analyses were performed. 3.A.1 Mean Item Responses by Cultural Group Item means are presented in Table 8 for all subjects, as well as broken down by cultural background. Furthermore, the KruskaI-wallis one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the groups. The items are presented in the order suggested by the cluster analysis below. The scale ranges from “1 - all the time" to ”3 - never". In general, there are no significant differences between the groups with respect to the structured questions regarding culture shock in children. However, with respect to three items. significant differences were observed: C69 - Saudi and solitary children indicated significantly less that they disliked being spoken to in English than Japanese or Korean children. C72 - Likewise, Saudi and solitary children indicated significantly more often that they liked to speak English. And, 08A - solitary and US children indicated significantly more often that they felt lonely while in school. 3.A.2 Cluster Analysis of the Scale In order to analyze the children's culture shock scale, the same BMOPIM procedure as described in the previous section. was used. The results 5l Table 8 Culture Shock in Children: Aben Item Responses by Cultural Group Do you (ever) ..feel that you have C67 1.30 1.50 1.71 1.80 a lot of friends ..like to speak -- rather C80 2.00 1.90 1.86 2.A0 than English ..dislike going out with- C7A 1.60 2.10 1.86 2.A0 out your fIMIIK ..feel happy at ome C70 1.70 1.60 1.29 l.A0 ..want to play only with C73 2.50 2.60 2.1A 2.50 children from -- ..miss your friends C77 1.33 2.00 1.86 1.70 rom -- ..want to go back to -- C79 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.70 ..enjoy going out without C68 2.70 2.30 2.1A 2.30 your family ..think will miss Ameri- C71 1.90 1.56 1.71 1.80 can friends when home ..enjoy to speak English C72 1.20 1.80 1.57 1.10 ..enjoy people speaking C76 1.30 1.50 1.71 1.20 to ou in English ..fee happy in school C75 1.10 1.30 l.A3 1.20 ..dislike.people.sfieaking C69 2.80 2.30 2.1A 2.90 to you In Englgs ..fee lonely while at C81 2.70 2.50 2.86 2.70 home here in USA ..want to play only with C78 2.A0 1.75 2.A3 2.20 American ch 1dren ..miss food from --- C82 2.70 2.00 2.1A 2.20 ..feel have no friends C83 2.70 2.60 3.00 2.50 ..feel lonely while in C8A 3.00 2.90 2.71 2.AO school 1 I all the time --- 2 I some of the time --- 3 I never Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary USA 1.50 2.10 1.20 2-33 1.50 2.10 2.20 lotal I-55 2.05 2.02 l.A5 2.A3 1.67 1.87 2.3A I-75 1.Al 1.Al 1.26 2.56 2-59 2.20 2.28 2.68 2.68 are presented in Figure 3 . The following clusters were generated from the items of this questionnaire: 52 Cluster 1 is formed by items C67 (feels to have a lot of friends) and C80 (prefers to speak native language). Cluster 2 adds item C7A (dislikes going out without the family) to cluster 1. Cluster 3 consists of items C70 (feels happy at home) and C73 (want to play only with children from home country) Cluster 4 composed of items C77 (misses friends from home country) and C79 (wants to go back home). Cluster 5 comprised of items C68 (enjoys going out without the family) and C71 (thinks will miss American friends after return). Cluster 6 is formed by items C72 (enjoys speaking English) and C76 (enjoys being spoken to in English). Cluster 7 adds item C75 (feels happy in school) to cluster 6. Cluster 8 consists of items C69 (dislikes being spoken to in English) and C81 (feels lonely while at home here in the USA). Cluster 9 consists of items C78 (wants to play only with American children) and C82 (misses food from home). Cluster 10 is formed by items C83 (feels to have no friends) and C8A (feels lonely while in school). Besides these elementary clusters, the following expansions are suggested by the results presented in Figure 3 : Cluster 11 joins clusters 2 and 3. Cluster 12 adds cluster A to cluster 11. Cluster 13 is formed by clusters 5 and 7. Cluster 14 consists of clusters 8 and 9. 53 Cluster 15 adds cluster 10 to cluster 1A. 3.A.3 Reliability of the Sub-Scales The results of the cluster analysis of the structured questions regarding culture shock in children suggest a division into some ten 'elementary' clusters, which may be combined such that the division may be reduced to three distinct, major clusters (numbers 12,13, and 15 above). Using the same strategy as presented above (page A6), reliability analyses were undertaken with the items in the clusters, in order to determine their significance. A summary of the results are presented in tables 9 and 10; complete results are reported in Appendix L (page 167). 3.A.3.1 Linkage to Own Cultural Group The first of the three clusters, number 12 above, consists of seven items; the reliability coefficient alpha is .A6. While five of the items contribute positively to the scale suggested by the cluster, the deletion of two items would increase the reliability of the scale: (a) deleting item C67 (feels to have a lot of friends) would increase the reliability to .A9; (b) deleting item C77 (misses friends from home) would increase the index to .50. Considering only cluster 11, a subset of 5 items of cluster 12, indicates a reliability of .AA; deleting item C67 would increase the reliability to .A9. Considering only cluster 02, a subset of three items of cluster 11, indicates a reliability of .31, with all three items contributing positively to the scale. 0n the basis of the cluster and reliability analyses, the first subscale of the Child Culture Shock scale, Linkage to Gun Cultural Group, is formed as follows: 1. C80 - prefer to speak native language 5A figure 3 Culture Shock in Children: Variable Cluster Analysis Do you (ever) ... ..feel that you have C67 S6/5A/5A A3/A7 53/36 51 AA 56 65 A6 58 A6 AA A9 36// . a lot of friends / / / ..like to speak -- C80 léS/é6 58/(2 69/A1 31 36 A2 A7 52 39 A2 51 60 A3// rather than English / // / / ..dislike going out C7A /A9 55/52 52/53 33 A9 A6 A5 A7 A3 36 57 56 AO/ without your family / / / ..think will miss Ameri- C70 67/(1 58/A0 A3 A7 55 56 A3 A6 37 55 A6 AA/l can friends after return / / / ..want to play only with C73 /A7 65/35 31 A3 A1 AA 65 A5 A2 51 A1 6A// children from -- _-__// / ..miss your friends C77 69/55 AA 71 71 A8 A2 AA 37 38 38 5A// from -- ..want to go back to -- C79 /36 28 52 A9 38 A6 A8 27 38 37 59// ..enjoy going out with- C68 60/51 51 A8/56 A3 A2 6A 59 55// ou your family / / / ..think will miss Ameri- C71 /A9 51 69/(7 59 59 A8 A2 A}// can friends when home . ------- / / ..enjoy to speak English C72 82/73/32 39 57 A0 A5 59/ / / .. ' 1 kl C 6 2 A 60 A A A8 {243%.Pifipefigi?:: "° 7 "l’ 9 3 9 9 // ..feel happy in school C75 lAA A9 55 A3 55 39/ / ..di llk l k- C6 1 1 AA in: to.y::°lneEH:llsh 9 59/5 5// 5§/ / / / .. l l ' i::. 12:: ."3:I° 't ‘8‘ ’5‘ 39/56 59/ / .. ttl I 1thC861A8 Aggricgnpcgllggeg w 7 3/5 // ..miss food from --- C82 /61 A}// ----/ ..feel have no friends C83 6}/ ..feel lonely while in C8A // school zgte: Tree printed over correlation matrix (scaled 0 - 100). ustering is by maximum distance method. 2. C7A - dislike going out without own family C70 - €73 - €77 - 6. C79 - As suggested Ult'w 55 feel happy at home want to play only with children from same country miss friends from home want to go back to home country by the reliability analysis, item C67 (feel to have a lot of friends) was excluded from this subscale, as it distracts form the reliability, and since it does not add conceptually. Culture Shock ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS Reliability E88 ALPHA I Reliability €83 CiA C 0 C 3 ALPHA I Reliability €81 C7A ALPHA I nnnnnn Table 9 in Children: Summary of Reliability Analyses: Cluster 12 SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 12 ) ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED WOO—4n wrmnm—N .AA832 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .A6ZIl Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 11 ) 8:33: 3 :3 3 :33: :823 6.12é 3. A; '3 ~°gz '3 g 7.22 “EA 331? 223 I 3 .AA570 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .AAAA3 Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 02 ) 32133 8333 all. 233% 2831 .31326 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .31096 56 3.h.3.2 Linkage to New Environment The second cluster, number l3, includes five items, and presents a reliability of .60. All items contribute positively to the overall reliability. Considering only cluster 7, a subset of three items of cluster l3, presents a reliability of .82, again, all items contribute positively to the overall reliability. Accordingly, this subset was accepted as the second subscale, Linkage to New £0viranment, as follows: 1. C72 - enjoy to speak English 2. C76 - enjoy being spoken to in English 3. C75 - feel happy in school 3.h.3.3 Need for Companionship The third major cluster, number l5, consists of six items, presenting a reliability of .37. Five of the items of this cluster contribute positively to the overall reliability. while the deletion of one item (C69: dislikes being spoken to in English) would increase the reliability to .h05. Considering only cluster lh, a subset of three items of cluster l5, reveals a reliability of .3l; again, deleting item C69 would increase the reliability of this subset to .AZ. This third subscale, Heed for Companionship. consists of the following five items: l. C81 - feel lonely while at home in USA 2. C78 - want to play only with US children 3. C82 - miss food from native country A. C83 - feel to have no friends 5. CBA - feel lonely while in school As suggested by the reliability analysis, item C69 was excluded, since it contributes neither statistically, nor conceptually. 57 Table IO lture Shock in Childre Summary of Reliability Analyses: Clusters 13 and 15 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED A IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DEL Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER l3 ) 8i 3: ‘3 8 28 323 228.88 333 g. g. 3.. 3.3 3%. ..38 C 5 . 9 .2 .A .A6 ALPHA I .5337I STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Reliability Analysis of Scale ( CLUSTER 07 ) 333 32333 223% ' 2333 2333 ALPHA I .8I399 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Reliability Analysis of Scale ( CLUSTER l5 ) Cg I2.62 2.A 6 .06I .O 8 C 3 I:.3A§ .A32 .I? .O§6 C I .g .2 § .I E82 I ng .ZAg .g; '.I g c 3 32 233% 112; Io 7 ALPHA I .377I8 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Reliability Analysis of Scale ( CLUSTER lA ) cg .200 -I. 6 .O'A .OO 8 i 3 3 3323 - -3 3 .3 £52 hgg 1102 Izgo ° ALPHA I .33566 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I 0‘ O N O O N-INN I on N O \O I W \J 0 U1 I u U“ N \D LPHA ITEM ETED i333 3.5 Culture Shock in Parents In the following, results of the application of the structured questions regarding culture shock in parents will be presented. As was for the structured questions regarding culture shock for ch the case ildren. the 58 parents' scale was also adapted from Thornton's (I979) Culture Shock Scale, as mentioned on page 33. 3.5.] Mean Item Responses by Cultural Background Item means are presented in Table II for all subjects, as well as broken down by cultural background. The scale ranged from "l - all the time" to ”5 - never". As may be noted, in general there are no significant difference between the groups, with the exception of the following five items: P20 - Saudi and Japanese parents indicate significantly more often to feel that they have a lot of friends. P28 - Saudi and Japanese parents indicate significantly more often to feel happy at home. P27 - Saudi and Japanese parents indicate significantly more often to want more American friends. P22 - Japanese and American parents indicate signficantly more often not to miss family and friends from home. P35 - Japanese and American parents indicate significantly more often not to wish to return. 3.5.2 Cluster Analysis of the Scale In order to analyze the parents' culture shock scale, the same BMDPlM procedure, as described above, was used. The results are presented in Figure A. The results of the cluster analysis suggest the following internal structure of the scale: Cluster 1 is comprised of items P28 (feels happy at home) and PAO (feels uncomfortable while attending class). Cluster 2 adds item P20 (feels to have a lot of friends) to cluster l. Cluster 3 is formed of items P33 (likes to speak English) and P38 (likes being spoken to in English)‘ Cluster 4 consists of items P25 (prefers to speak native language) and 59 Table 11 Culture Shock in Parents: Near Ital Responses by Cultural Group Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary (ISA Total Do you (ever) ... ..feel that you have a lot of P20 1.50 1.50 2.A3 3.30 2.90 2.32 friends ..feel happy at home P28 1.50 1.20 2.29 1.80 2.20 1.77 ..feel uncomfortable while PAO 3.67 3.20 A.00 A.00 A.30 3.81 attending class ..like to speak English P33 1.60 1.90 1.86 1.80 -- 1.78 ..likeOfor people to speak to 938 2.10 1.90 1.57 1.80 -- 3.87 you In English .. ike.to speak --- rather than P25 2.00 2.30 1.29 1.60 -- l.8A English at home ..concerned about our P26 2.A0 3.30 2.29 3.00 -- 2.78 child(ren)'s abi ity to speak --- ..think about missing US food P37 A.50 3.60 3.57 A.10 -- 3.97 after your return ome ..enjoyfgoing shopping without P21 3.33 2.A0 3.AA 3.70 3.10 3.17 our am: Ar: you everyunable to relax in P30 A.00 3.20 3.71 3.30 3.90 3.62 the company of Americans/Michiganders ..dislikeEpeopl: speaking to 23 A.20 3.80 A.A3 A.50 -- A.22 ou in n is ..zant to have more American/ P27 1.70 2.10 3.1A 3.10 3.11 2.59 Michi an friends ..miss he food from --- P29 A.00 2.80 A.29 3.70 A.30 3.79 ..miss your family and friends P22 1.60 3.50 2.00 2.10 2.80 2.A3 ..dislike going shopping with- P32 3.38 3.90 A.00 2.80 A.3O 3.67 out your family ..proud of your child(ren)'s P31 1.60 2.10 1.A3 1.20 -- 1.60 pro ress n En lish ..wis to go bac to --- P35 2.10 3.A0 1.29- 1.30 3.50 2.38 ..feel confined in your home PZA 3.00 3.80 2.1A 2.70 3.50 3.09 here in the USA Are you ever unable to relax in P39 A.10 A.00 3.00 3.90 -- 3.83 company of compatriots ..ambarrassed when asking your PAZ A.56 3.86 2.60 A.A3 -- A.00 child(ren)'s hel in social sit ations ..concerned that c ild(ren) P 3 3.AA 2.56 1.57 2.80 -- 2.66 will have difficulty after returning to --- ..feelnghat you do no have any P3A A.10 A.A0 3.29 3.60 A.A0 A.00 ..need the help of child(ren) P36 2.50 3.78 3.1A 3.20 -- 3.1A In IOC‘.' :‘t:.8Ion‘ kI PAI 3 89 3 56 2 71 3 II 3 35 ee .. CIVIC" Of . . . . n e e a e -- e --- in front of AmerIzans g , 1 I all the time --- 5 I never P26 (concerned about child's ability to speak native language). 60 Cluster 5 adds item P37 (thinks will miss US food after return) Cluster 6 is formed of items P21 (enjoys going shopping without family) and P30 (unable to relax in the company of Americans) Cluster 7 consists of items P27 (wants to have more American friends) and P29 (misses food from home) Cluster 8 adds item P23 (dislikes being spoken to in English) to cluster 7. Cluster 9 is formed of items P22 (misses family and friends from home) and P32 (dislikes going shopping without the family). Cluster 10 is formed by items P31 (proud of child's progress in English) and P35 (wishes to go back home) Cluster 11 consists of items P2h (feels confined in home in USA) and P39 (unable to relax in the company of others from home country). Cluster 12 formed by items th (embarrassed when asking child's help) and Ph3 (concerned that child will have difficulty after return home) Cluster 13 consists of items P3h (feels not to have friends) and P36 (needs help of child in social situations). Cluster 14 adds item Phl (feels uncomfortable speaking native language in front of Americans) to cluster 13. Some of these elementary clusters may be combined as follows: Cluster 15 is formed of Clusters 2 and 3. Cluster 16 adds cluster 5 to cluster 15. Cluster 17 joins clusters 6 and 8. Cluster 18 is composed of clusters 9 and 10. Cluster 19 joins clusters 11 and 12. 61 Cluster 20 adds cluster 1h to cluster 19. 3.5.3 Reliability of the Sub-Scales The results of the cluster analysis of the structured questions regarding culture shock in parents suggest a division into at least five distinct, major clusters. Four of these clusters are composed of several 'elementary' clusters. Using the same strategy as presented above (page h6), reliability analyses were undertaken with the items in the clusters. A summary of the results is presented in tables 12 and 13: complete results may be found in Appendix M (page 173). The first of the five clusters, number 1, consists of two 3.5.3.1 Acculturation items: P28 (feels happy at home) and PhD (feels uncomfortable while attending class), therefore, only the correlation coefficient between these two items is considered. As may be noted from Appendix J-3 (page 162). the coefficient is r - .36 (n - 37, ns). 0n the basis of the cluster and reliability analyses, the first subscale, Acculturetian. of the Parent Culture Shock scale is formed as follows: 1. P28 2. Ph0 - feel uncomfortable while attending class 3. P33 - like to speak English A. P38 - like to be spoken to in English As suggested by the reliabilty analysis, item P20 (feel that you have a lot of friends) is excluded, since it contributes neither statistically feel happy at home nor conceptually. .oocuoe eoceu0.o e3!.xee >9 n. ac.e0.03.o ..oo. . o oe.e00. x.eaelco.ue.eeeou ee>o oeuc.ea been "0.02 ecuu.e01e so \\ .ve «cote c. --- oc.s0000 0.00.e0eeouc3 .00e.. 000. no 00... av \«0\ one .0.000 c. .cee.o..cu e3o> .0 0.0: 0c. 000c.. ooo. on oo~.- ov \ \ ooh. no 00n.- an m \ 000. an ooc.- on \ exee cne 00:0.ee >c0 0>0: .0: 00 30> .02. .00... can. on oom.- on x- ...... 000. On 000.- On “ --- o“ ocwcL3uee e0 .- >..3u.ee.o wwm” mm wwwu- m" \\ a no nw\ nve 0>0e ...: :0; 0..cu L30 «0;. oeceeucou.. 00.. mm oom.- n \ \ 0co..e3..0 .0.uoe c. n.0c 000. on ooo..- o \xen an owxee «we ...c0eeo..cu e30> uc.xa0 cecs 00-00eeenee.. 60.06—02.00 O>Onl CO.uI—ILLOO I>ODI W $¢ Duo-Luflgo 03.0) 03.0) \\ a no QV\ «w\ one so >con¢ou 030 c. xo.0e o. 0.90:3 Le). 30> one 0.90u u:.ao..o. 0:. o» ac.0eouue \ m m 00. 0. o 00.000 c000 0>0c 00L. 0.5. c. 003.03 0:. \xev 0v max 0 oox 0 cue «n: 0c. c. 0e0: 0e0: e3o> c. 00c.ecou .00... \\mo .n en .n on on nw\ one --- 0. gang on 0. co.s.. \xmv en cm on on an n“\m> .ne so..ocu c. 0n0euoee u..:0e.o..zu e3o> e0 030e0.. \an on .0 we on on .w\mn nwx nne >_.e0e e3o> «3050.3 oc.eeocn uc.ou 0x._n.o.. \ \ \\mq no no on no on noxen voxco nne --- c. «0:0.ee 0:0 >..see e3o> 00.e.. \xmn an en .n en no no .n on em nmx nne --- not. 000. 0:. 00.e.. \xmc 00 Q. .n on an on on nv no owxme ene 30:0.e. c00.e0e« 0L0: 0>0g 0. .c03.. \ \xe' no on on nn on no on on .n v“\«e no nne :0..ueu c. 30> 0. ac.x00en 0.000e 0x....0.. m m ocuu.LO!< eo \\ n on no no on on no on «n on n“\ 0 on n“\ one >caeeoo 0:. c. x0.0e o. 0.n0c3 e0>0 30> 0e< \ \xev en en no .n on on an .0 on cmxmn nv onxmn .ne >..00. e3o> .3050.) oc.eooc0 oc.oo >0.c0.. xx“. nv an .n on an 00 0n on o. nwxun on on on ewx ene 00 30> e0.e0 000. n: oc.e0.e .3000 s:.:... \ --- xenon o. \\mv .n no on an an an en «c on «W\em en he on nmxmmx one >0...00 0..c0e.u_.cu e30> .3090 o0ceeueou.. \ \ xxnv an .0 an an on on on an .o nwxmn no no nn cwxhnxmo nne 0eoc .0 so..ocu :05. 20:.0e --- x0000 0. 0a.... \ \xmn on an en no nn .n em an en nmxmv on an en cmxnn en ovx one cu..acu c. 30> 0. x0000 0. 0.000e eoe 03.... \\«0 v0 00 no .n 00 on no 00 .v nvxmv no on .n e“\«v en n“\mn nne cu..ucu x00e0 0. 0x.... \\«c on .v on nv «c .n no on on nm\“n 0e nn 0» vmxmn on owxmn nwx one one—o oc.oc0..0 0..e3 0.300eoeeooc3 .00... \ \\«v «v «0 on «v cw nc on no «a nmxmw no en en owxen an n“\mn nmxme one 0eoc .0 >eeoe .00... x \ \nn nv en en nn an en an en on ov\mn oe on .v enxmc en nvxnn enxmo on One out0.ee e0 .0. 0 0>0: 30> «0:. .00... ... Aeo>ov 30> oo euceeee Lo. xuocm 0e3..3o uc.oc000¢ eco.«0030 oee3uuaeam eo 0.0>.0ce e0003.u 0.ne.ee> ”v 0e30.e 63 3.5.3.2 Adjustment Level The second of the five clusters, number 16, consists of eight items, with a reliability coefficient of .h3. All but one item, P37 (thinks will miss US food) contribute positively to the scale suggested by this cluster. Deleting item P37 would increase the reliability of the remaining seven item scale to .A6. Considering, finally, cluster 5, a three item subset of cluster 16, provides a reliability coefficient of .26; deleting item P37 would increase the reliability to .36. Considering only cluster 15, which is a five item subset of cluster 16, provides a reliability coefficient of .65. Furthermore, deleting item P20 (feels to have many friends) would increase the reliability coefficient to .65. Considering only cluster 2, a three item subset of cluster 15, leads to a reliability of .hh: again, deleting item P20 would increase the reliability of the remaining items, to .50. This second subscale, Adjustment, is based on cluster 17 and is composed of the following four items: 1. P30 - unable to relax in the company of Americans 2. P23 - dislike to be spoken to in English 3. P27 - want to have more American friends A. P29 - miss the food from home As suggested by the reliability analysis, item P21 (enjoy going shopping without your family). is excluded, since it contributes neither statistically nor conceptually. 3.5.3.3 Linkage to Own Cultural Group The third of the five major clusters, number 17, consists of five items, with a reliability coefficient of .52. Deleting one of the items, P21 (enjoys going out without family), improves the reliability of the 6h Table 12 lture Shock in Parent Summary of Reliability Analyses: Clusters 16 and 17 lTEM-TOTAL STATISTICS Reliability P2 P2 5A0 533 p22 P37 ALPHA - Reliability P2 P2 gho péi ALPHA - Reliability P2 P2 PAD ALPHA - Reliability P2 P2 P37 ALPHA - Reliability P21 P 0 P . p2; P2 ALPHA - Reliability P2 P2 P2 ALPHA - remaining four Item scale to .57. SCALE MEAN IF ITEM DELETED Analysis 1 .2 0 I $3. 0 I 15. ~39h97 Analysis Bzggz 33393 .62297 Analysis $313 .h2326 Analysis 6. izglé .2hl76 Analysis Ii 9.3% .51171 Analysis §.222 .00 77 77399 SCALE CORRECTED VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION ( CLUSTER 16 ) 2031 Eli iii of Scale 2°33 ’-053 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA 8 ( CLUSTER 15 ) Iii iii STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA ( CLUSTER 02 ) 311$ All . .3 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA for Scale ( CLUSTER 05 ) h.h 6 .2h gigsl 2033 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA ( CLUSTER 17 ) 12°fih21 .120 Iz:ol :33 9 w; Z§I§ STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA for Scale ( CLUSTER 08 ) ii; iii STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I for Scale for Scale for Scale .123 ii 2 IE 2??? .A2593 333% h Inga .6h161 2128 .1 91 .Ahlh9 2828 .006 ~25903 .2 .123 .325 .78088 Considering only the three items of 65 cluster 8, a subset of cluster 17, provides a reliability of .62, deleting one of the items, P23 (dislikes being spoken to in English), increases the reliability to .66. This third subscale, Linkage to OWn Cultural Group, is based on cluster 18. and is composed of the following three items: 1. P22 - miss family and friends in home country 2. P31 - proud of child's progress in English 3. P35 - wish to go back to home country As suggested by the reliability analysis, item P32 (dislike going shopping without your family), since it contributes neither statistically nor conceptually. is excluded, 3.5.3.h Frustration The fourth of the major clusters, number 18, consists of four items, with a reliability coefficient of .639. Deleting item P32 (dislikes going shopping without family) would improve the reliability to .66. This fourth subscale, Frustration. is based on cluster 19 and is composed of the following four items: 1. PZA - feel confined at home in the USA 2. P39 - unable to relax in the company of compatriots 3. PhZ - embarrassed when asking child's help A. Ph3 - concerned that children will have difficulties after return 3.5.3.5 Isolation The last of the five major clusters, number 20, consists of seven items, with a reliability coefficient of .78. All seven items contribute positively to the scale suggested by this cluster. Considering cluster 19, a four item subset of cluster 20, provides a reliability of .69, 66 Table 13 lture Shock in Paren Summary of Reliability Analyses: Clusters 18 and 20 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM SQUARED A IF ITEM IF ITEM TOT AL MULTI IPLE IF DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DEL Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 18 ) $23 3: oil 3: oil :3 g zi° 22§° 2%; 92:3 2:: g; ~37 9; :03 ALPHA - 6731 s DROIZED ITE ALPHA - '.g 913 ° Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 20 ) :29 i°222 #2238 :23‘ :26 : ii iii gag: :53 ii all SI? 30: I? iizsoi : 32 I 2 : ii ALPHA I .77656 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 19 ) P2“ 10.682 11.089 .5 .223 .6 2 P23 .303 10. Ah . é .2 .2 P . I 12. i8 . .1 1 . g Ph3 l .095 9.7 . A . ALPHA I .68916 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 1h ) Eli iii: iziii 25:? iii: ail: ALPHA I .773h9 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA .78088 I N on O 0‘ I O 0‘ oo 0‘ CD while cluster 1h, the other subset of cluster 20, provides a reliability of .78. This fifth subscale, Isolation, is based on cluster lb and is composed of the following three items: 1. P3h - feel not to have friends P36 - need help of children in social situations Phi - feel uncomfortable speaking native language in front of Americans. 67 3.6 Testing of Hypotheses 3.6.1 Comparisons by Cultural Background and Sex The first hypothesis of this study states that There is no relationship between cultural background and perceived competence, as measured by the PSPCAYC The second hypothesis of the study states There is no relationship between sex and perceived competence, as measured by the PSPCAYC To test these hypotheses, Kruskal-Hallis one-way analyses of variance were performed. Table lb presents item mean for the four subscales, broken down by cultural background and sex of the respondent. The overall item mean for Cognitive Competence is 3.35. Using the Kruskal-Hallis one-way analysis of variance, no significant differences were found between the five cultural groups. The item means for male and female respondents are 3.h9 and 3.19,no significant difference was found. The overall item mean for Physical Competence is 3.56. Comparing groups, the highest mean is found among the Saudi children (3.67), the lowest among the US children (3.h7). The item means for male and female respondents are 3.58 and 3.53. No significant differences were observed between either cultural groups or sex. The overall item mean for Peer Acceptance is 3.32. Comparing groups, a highly significant difference was found, in the sense that the Saudi children perceived themselves as most accepted (3.75), followed by the Japanese (3.h8), Korean (3.19), US (3.17), and lastly the children of 68 Table 1A Rean Item Responszi giltggafoggaggjgzdSSgles of tbe PSPCAYC Saudi Japanese Korean Solitary USA Total Cognitive Competence Femal° (n -3'§I I 2'3? I 3 S? I 3 ii I 3'3? I 32I "3" I 3'99 I 3'%l I 3 3? I 3'1? I 3'1? I 322? T°ta' I 316? I 313? I 3'79 ( 313? I 3i3i I 3&7? Physical Competence Female 3.61 3.63 3.u3 3.53 3.50 3.53 Male 3.69 3.67 3.75 3.67 3.u5 3.58 Total 3.67 3.53 3.52 3.58 3.h7 3.56 Peer Acceptance Female 3.67 3.u2 2.97 2.72 3.11 3.10 Male 3-79 3.53 3.75 3.29 3.19 3.99 Total 3.75 3.h8 3.19 2.95 3.17 3.32* Raternal Acceptance Female 2.61 2.5h 2.37 2.A7 2.78 2.52 Male. 2.92 2.36 2.75 2.58 2.57 2.63 Total 2.83 2.A3 2.h8 2.52 2.63 2.59 * significant differences at the .01 level solitary families (2.95). Highly significant_ differences were also found between boys and girls, in that the former perceived themselves as more accepted (3.h9 versus 3.10). The overall item mean for Maternal Acceptance is 2.59. Comparing cultural groups, the highest mean is found among the Saudi children (2.83), the lowest among the Japanese (2.A3). The item means for male and female respondents are 2.63 and 2.52. No significant differences were observed between either cultural groups or sex. 69 3.6.1.] Summary of Finding for Hypotheses l and 2 In general, no significant differences were found between children of various cultural backgrounds or sex with respect to perceived competence, as determined by the PSPCAYC in the domains of cognitive competence, physical competence, and maternal acceptance. Highly significant differences were found with respect to perception of peer acceptance. 3.6.2 Correlations with Age and Time Abroad The third hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between age at the time of the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence. The fourth hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between the age at the time of the interview and percelved competence. The fifth hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between length of time since the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence. The sixth hypothesis of this study states .There is no relationship between the length of time until return to the home country and perceived competence. These hypotheses were tested by using Spearman rank correlations. Table 15 presents correlations between the four major scales of the PSPCAYC. and age at arrival. age when interviewed, time since arrival and time until departure. Correlations are presented for all subjects together, as well as individually by cultural background. Considering all subjects, no significant correlations (p < .05) are observed. However, looking at the various cultural groups. the following relationships may be noted. Among the Saudi children, there are significant correlations with respect to cognitive competence and age when interviewed, as well as 70 with respect to peer acceptance and time since arrival. Both correlations are negative, indicating that the older the children are at the time of the interview, the less cognitive competence they perceived; and the longer they have been away from home, the less peer acceptance do they perceive. Among the Japanese children, cognitive competence was found to correlate negatively and significantly with age, both at arrival and when interviewed. In other words, the older the children are at these two points, the less competent they perceive themselves. With respect to physical competence, a significant and negative correlation was observed with age when interviewed: the older the child, the less physically competent he/she felt. With respect to peer acceptance, signficant negative correlations are observed with respect to age, both at arrival and when interviewed: The older at these two points in time, the less acceptance is perceived. Among the Korean children a significant and positive relationship was found between cognitve competence and time left until departure: the more time was left abroad, the more competence they perceived. With respect to physical competence, negative and significant correlations were observed with age when interviewed and time left until departure, i.e., the older the children, and the more time left until departure, the less competent the children felt. 0n the other hand, a positive and significant correlation was observed with respect to peer acceptance and time until departure: The more time was left until departure, the more peer acceptance they perceived. Among the children from families which are solitary representatives of their respective countries, significant correlations were only observed with respect to maternal acceptance: the older at the time of arrival, the less acceptance is perceived, and the longer the time since arrival, the more acceptance is noted. Considering the US children, finally, only one may be observed: The state of residence, themselves. longer 7] less physically significant competent they correlation they have been away from their previous perceive Table 15 Spearman Rank Correlations between” 4 Maj? r Scales of the PSPCAYC and rrlva ntervi Time gSinceA Arrival, an dwiimeh until syparture Saudi) Ja anes Korean Solitar USA m- ” io) (n -m m-imIn-wlm Cognitive Competence) Age Arrival -2 -22** -b0 22 0 Age Interview -§§* - * -h§ EA 0% Tlme Arrival - 28 -l -3 Time Departure l l 1.0 ** -39 ** Physical Competence A e Arr val - - 6 l0 -lA Age Interview 33 -26* -§Z* lé Tlme Arrival IO 00 - l Time Departure 3i -29 - 7* 0 *** Peer Acceptance Age Arrival AZ -66* -0 -I2 0 A e Interview -lh -¥2** -A -20 I; Tlme Arrival - 6* 3 -h IO -0 Time Departure 0 -h 9 ** -32 *** Maternal Acceptance A e Arrival 18 2 0h - * A Age Interview -2 El -ll -§Z A Tlme Arrival -2 A3 -62 ll** -2 Time Departure -03 -0 - ** * . at g E .8 ***nn2 . . . d—u—uo J’O‘I‘N 10m dogs-a ~4er 72 3.6.2.l Summary of Findings for Hypotheses 3 to 6 Summing over all groups, no significant relationships were found between age and length of stay variables and the domains of perceived competence and acceptance as determined by the PSPCAYC. When groups were examined individually, however, some significant effects were found, which differed by group, providing some support for the hypotheses and suggesting further that effects of interest were measured by combining groups. While specific results differed by group, in general the findings reflect negative relationships between perceived competence and variables of age at arrival, age at interview, time of arrival and time of departure. The pattern of negative correlations in these analyses was quite notable, and possible explanations will be presented in the next chapter. 3.6.3 Correlations between Competence and Culture Shock The seventh hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the parents' perceptlon of their children's competence. The eighth hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between the children's perce tion of their own competence, and the children's culture s ock. Th ninth hypothesis of this study states There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the parents' culture shock. These hypotheses were tested by using Spearman rank correlations, as presented in the following. 3.6.3.] Correlations with Parents' Perception of Children's Competence As presented on page A7, the cluster and reliability analyses of the PPCC scale resulted in three subscales: 73 1. erception of General Adaptation (ranging from 1 - negative to - positive): 2. perception of Social Competence (ranging from 1 - negative to 5 - p051tive): 3. perception of Peer Acceptance (ranging from 1 - positive to 5 - negative). Table 16 presents Spearman rank correlations between the four subscales of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC) and the three subscales of the Parents’ Perception of Children’s Competence (PPCC) scale, broken down by cultural background. Concerning General Adaptation, a positive correlation may be observed for Saudi children: The more positive the parents' perception of their children's general adaptation, the more positive the perception of the children of their own physical competence (r - .7A, p < .01). Concerning Social Competence, several positive correlations may be observed. Among Japanese children: The more positive the parents' Table 16 Spearman Rank Correlations between Suhscales of Competence PSPCAYC Cognitive Ph sical Peer Maternal Range: - low to A - high PPCC General Ada tation .00 .Z; a ** .0 go -.080 Saudi n-10 (1 - neg : - pos) . A5 . g .A A .0 Japan n-10 .A .2A 1 .2 A1 . 312 Korea n- .395 .1773 .A 1 .A l Solitary n=1 8 I C -.2 A0 -.2 8 -.l -. 2 2 (pnergeg pm efeggg) -.D§82 .1??? ** .zzzg .gggé . . l . a . as .2;9 * .BAgZ .2333 .572 * Pper Acceptgnce ) °?Agh ** .163 .OAg .1380 4.1.: 4535 -ng egg -.2 19 -. l -.7 7 ** -. 7 * p < .0 **p<.0 7A perception of their children's social competence, the more positive the perception of the children of their own physical competence (r - .72, p < .01). Among Korean children: The more positive the parents' perception of their children's social competence, the more positive the perception of the children of their own (a) peer accepetance (r - .67, p < .05), and (b) maternal acceptance (r . .89, p < .01). Among solitary children: The more positive the parents' perception of their children's social competence, the more positive the perception of the children of their own (a) cognitive competence (r - .68, p < .05), and (b) maternal acceptance (r - .57, p < .05). Concerning Peer Acceptance, two significant correlations may be observed. Among Saudi children: The more negative the parents' perception of their children's peer acceptance, the more positive the perception of the children of their own cognitive competence-(r - .81, p < .01). Among solitary children: The more positive the parents' perception of their children's peer acceptance, the more positive the perception of the children of their own peer acceptance (r - -.79, p < .01). In summary, few statistically significant relationships were found between the children's perception of their own competence and acceptance, as determined by the PSPCAYC, and the parents' perception of their children's competence, as determined by the PPCC. This raises the question of whether the results observed occurred by chance, especially in the case of general adaptation and peer acceptance. In the case of social competence, 5 of 16 relationships were significant: and all significant results showed a positive relationship between parental perception of child's competence and child's own perception of competence and acceptance. 75 3.6.3.2 Correlations with Parents' Culture Shock Scale As presented on page 63, the cluster and reliability analyses of the parents' culture shock scale resulted in five subscales: 1. Acculturation (ranging from 1 - high to 5 - low); 2. Adjustment (ranging from 1 - low to 5 - high), or Alienation (ranging from 1 - hlgh to 5 - low); 3. Linkpge to Own Cultural Group (ranging from 1 - high to 5 Frustration (ranging from 1 - high to 5 - low); Isolation (ranging from 1 - high to 5 - low). Table 17 presents Spearman rank correlations between the four subscales of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC) and the five subscales of the parents' culture shock scale, broken down by cultural background. Concerning acculturation and isolation, no significant correlations were found between the PSPCAYC and parents' culture shock. Concerning alienation, two significant correlations were found among Korean families: The higher the alienation reported by the parents, the more negative the children's own perception of (a) cognitive competence (r - .79, p < .05). and (b) physical competence (r - .80, p < .05). Concerning Linkage to 0W0 Group. one significant correlation was found among solitary families: The lower the linkage to the own group reported by the parents, the more positive the perception of the children's own cognitive competence (r - -.61, p < .05). Concerning frustration. one significant correlation was found among solitary families: The higher the frustration reported by the parents, the more negative the perception of the children's own physical competence (r - .62, p < .05). 76 Table 17 S earman Rank Correa ions t e S}; bscales of Com etence p and Culture £50”! an flarents p PSPCAYC Cognitive Physical Peer Maternal (Range: 1 - low to A - high) Culture Shock in Parents (1 - high : 5 - low) Acculturation -.08Ag - .2 66 .2318 1AA Saudi n-10 - 323 -. 8A -.$ 10 Japan n-10 . 2A 53; -.22 2 -. Egg Korea (n- -.3323 MS -.20A3 -.1 Solitary n-l Alienation - 3 fizz .060A .080 §§§.- . a: E§°$ - 3 — .292 —22733 . 837 Linkage to Own Group 3:560: '; #32 Ezéog? ::§?§§ -I6lo 06; -20901 I l29 . Izééié a :3: 3%? Isolation 2:8é all 253% fill: all; .I ”I l M In summary, even fewer statistically significant relationships were found between the children's perception of their own competence and acceptance, as determined by the PSPCAYC, and the the parents' culture shock scale. 3.6.3.3 Correlations with Children's Culture Shock Scale As presented on page 55, the cluster and reliability analyses of the children's culture shock scale resulted in three subscales: 77 l. Linkage to one's own Cultural Group (ranging from l - high to 3 - ow ; 2. Cinkage to the New Environment (ranging from i - high to 3 - ow : 3. Need for Companionship (ranging from i - high to 3 - low). Table l8 presents Spearman rank correlations between the four subscales of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCAYC) and the three subscales of the children's culture shock scale, broken down by cultural background. Concerning linkage to Own Group, several significant correlations may be observed. Among the Japanese children: The lower the reported need for linkage to the own group, the more positive the perception of the children's own (a) physical competence (r - .76, p < .01), and (b) peer acceptance (r - .66, p < .01). Among the Korean children: The higher the reported need for linkage to the own group, the more negative the child's own perception of maternal acceptance (r - -.93, P < .01). Table l8 R k C I t' t I f C t 5mm" .. .zztntzzzsszsmz Him: 0 .... PSPCAYC Cognitive Physical Peer Maternal Culture Shock in Children Need for Own Group :Igogg :gh6é ** - gégo ** ::206h - u cg -. gig ** o 9 -.2 * -Igéis 2&263 - 'fi:3°§:3??.fil.nt :zélgi Izéégl 0 I‘ll -. g3h -.2 9 uszh u 9 Need for ' . 0 ** -.2hh .2680 .l 0 Saudi n-IO Companionship -.35 Z .10 g .0 0 -. h Japan n-l0 -. g * -.§ § -.3 3g * -.3 2 Korea n- .3l 7 . 7 . l . Solitary n-l 78 Among the solitary children the same significant relationship as among the Korean children was observed (r - -.56, p < .05). Concerning Acceptance of the New £nvironnent. two significant correlations were observed. Among both Japanese and Korean children: The higher the reported acceptance of the new environment, the more negative the perception of the children's own maternal acceptance (r - -.69, p < .05 and r - -.82, p < .05 respectively). Concerning Need for Companionship, three significant correlations were observed. Among Saudi children: The lower the reported need for companionship, the more positive the perception of the children's own cognitive competence (r - .77, p < -.0l). Among Korean children: The higher the reported need for companionship, the more positive the perception of the children's own (a) cognitive competence (r - -.8l, p < .05), and (b) peer acceptance (r I .-79, p < .05). In summary. few statistically significant relationships were found between the children's perception of their own comptence and acceptance, as determined by the PSPCAYC, and the children's culture shock scale. However, the few that were significant, appear to point in the same direction: Both peer acceptance and physical competence are positively related to need for own group among the Japanese children. Among the Korean children, need for companionship is negatively correlated will all domains, and signficantly so with cognitive competence and peer acceptance. Need for own group and acceptance of the new environment are negatively correlated with maternal acceptance, especially among the Korean children. Larger samples might have provided more clearcut trends. 3.6.3.h 'Summary of Findings for Hypotheses 7 to 9 Few significant relationships were observed between the four subscales of the PSPCAYC on the one hand, and the subscales of the PPCC and the 79 culture shock scales for children and parents. 0n the one hand, this raises the question of whether the results observed occurred by chance, especially for the case of correlations with the parents' culture chock scale. 0n the other hand, some discernable trends were observed, such as (a) consistently positve correlations between parental perception of children's competence and the children's own perception of competence and acceptance, and (b) negative correlations between maternal acceptance and children's need for own group and acceptance of the new environment. CHAPTER h DISCUSSION The results of the data analyses presented above will be discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, limitations of this study, conclusions and implications of findings will be presented. This study proposed to deal with three general research questions (cf. page 2): I. Is the ability to cope with a new environment influenced by cultural background and sex? 2. Is the age at the time of the move: the age at the time of the interview: the len th of time since arrival: as well as length of time left until eparture, related to the present ability to cope with the different envuronment? 3. Are the children's perceptions of their own competence related to the parents' perceptions of their children's competence, as well as to the cu ture shock reported by the children and the parents? How the results of this study bear on these questions in terms of relevance to past theory and research will be considered in the following discussion. h.l Influence of Cultural Background and Sex Two hypotheses were formulated to answer the first general research question, regarding the relationship between perceived competence on the one hand and cultural background and sex on the other. The first hypothesis stated: 80 8l There is no relationship between cultural background and perceived competence as measured by the PSPCAYC. The results of the Kruskal-Hallis one-way analysis of variance confirmed the null-hypothesis in the domains of cognitive and physical competence, as well as maternal acceptance. Significant differences were found, however, in the peer acceptance domain, in the sense that Saudi children perceived themselves as most accepted, followed by the Japanese, Korean, US, and lastly the children of solitary families. The second hypothesis stated: There is no relationship between sex and perceived competence, as measured by the PSPCAYC. Again, highly significant differences were found only in the peer acceptance domain, in the sense that boys found themselves more accepted than girls. In the following, several reasons for these results will be considered: h.l.l Suitability of the Scale Considering the differences (or lack thereof) between children of differing cultural background, it must be asked first if the PSPCAYC is appropriate to the population in question. It is imperative to mention that the scale was developed by Harter 8 Pike for a US population of first and second graders. The pictoral version was chosen for the present study, among other reasons (cf. page 29ff), given the potential problem with fluency in English on the part of the foreign children. Consequently, a reliability analysis was repeated for the present population (cf. page 30). Interestingly enough, the highest reliability coefficient was found for the peer acceptance subscale. 82 h.l.2 Content of the Subscales Another possible explanation refers to the item content of the subscales. It may be argued that the activities presented in the subscales are not developmentally appropriate across the entire range of six to twelve year olds. Only the peer acceptance subscale seems to present content appropriate to all of the ages encompassed in this study. At the same time, it appears to present the most clear cut items (one either goes or does not go to somebody's house to play). Likewise, more objective items might make the cognitive subscale more sensitive to existing differences between children. h.l.3 Children's Perceptions as Revealed in Spontaneous Comments With the exception of one interview with a solitary family, either or both parents were present during the interview of the child. During the administration of the competence domain subscales (cognitive and physical), a constant occurrence was that children would point to alternatives 3 (pretty good) or A (really good) and would comment "Now I am better" or ”I grow up by myself", as if they were comparing past and present perceived skills. In contrast, no mention of doing well or poorly is being made in the peer acceptance subscale. A child either does or does not have a lot of friends to play with, is usually asked to play or not. Thus, perception of skills is not involved. 0n the other hand, it might be questioned why such significant differences were not found in the maternal acceptance domain. Two general reactions were observed on the part of the children as they were confronted with the maternal acceptance subscale items: More assertive children looked at their mothers and commented, "Now'you will seel", or "It is my time now!" The parents, in turn, made comments such as "Be honest", or "You can tell". These observations suggest the influence of extraneous variables on the children's responses to the maternal acceptance 83 subscale. h.l.h Group Differences The authors of the scale report that "young children [preschool to 2nd grade] tend to report relatively positive feelings of competence and acceptance” (Harter 5 Pike, l98], p. ll) in comparison with children grades three through nine. Among the subjects of the present study, however, the Saudi children were the oldest (mean age 9.A), followed by children of solitary families (9.0), Koreans (8.3), Japanese (8.2) and US (7.7). Assuming age to confound cultural background, one would expect US children to present higher scores than Saudi children: instead, the opposite was found. As indicated above (cf. page 2i), cultural groups were selected as representing varying levels of support available to the children after moving to a new environment. Saudi children experience strong group support through their own school, Japanese and Korean children receive support through their numbers, while solitary children are isolated, and so are US children, even though they moved within their own culture. The stronger the group support, the higher_ the perceived peer acceptance reported by the children. h.l.5 Sex No data were reported by Harter or her associates regarding sex differences. The significant differences regarding perception of peer acceptance found in the present case, appeared to apply equally to all groups, i.e., all boys perceive themselves as more accepted. Whether this finding is a reflection of personal attributes, or of the respective cultures, might be a topic for future study. 8b h.l.6 Summary of First Research Question In summary, the peer acceptance domain was found to be the most reliable subscale for the age range studied, and was the only one found to vary due to cultural background or sex. These findings are similar to Hartup's (l983) observation that peer contacts vary enornously among cultures in which peer relations contribute informally or formally to socialization. However, "it remains the case that more is known about peer relations among American children than among children in any other culture: few universal assertions can be made with confidence" (p. 173)- h.2 Influence of Age and Time Abroad Four hypotheses were formulated to answer the second general research question of this study: Is the age at the time of the move: the age at the time of the interview° the length of time since arrival; as well as length 9f time left until departure, related to the present ability to cope with the different environment? h.2.l Influence of Age Two hypotheses were formulated to test the relationship between perceived competence on the one hand and age of the child on the other. The third hypothesis of this study stated: There is no relationship between a e at the time of the move across cultural bounderies an perceived competence. The results of the Spearman rank correlations rejected the null hypothesis only in the case of Japanese children with respect to cognitive competence and peer acceptance, as well as in the case of the . solitary children in the maternal acceptance domain. The fourth hypothesis of the study stated: 85 There is no relationship between the age at the time of the interview and perceived competence. The results of the Spearman rank correlations rejected the null hypo- thesis in the following cases: In the cognitive domain among Saudi and Japanese children, in the physical domain among Japanese and Korean children, and in the peer acceptance domain among Japanese children. In the following, possible explanations for these results will be considered. h.2.l.l Cognitive Competence Domain h.2.l.l.l Age at Arrival A possible explanation for the results among the Japanese group refers to sociological variables. Given the highly structured nature of Japanese society, Children learn, beginning with kindergarten, how to conform to a particular role. Older children have more experience in Japanese school, being consequently more experienced to the demands of working hard and trying to do their job as perfect as possible. Having to a new society, the older children may feel more disrupted, and perceive their initial lack of competence vis-a-vis the new society more accutely. It should be mentioned in this context that in all but one Japanese family (where the father was absent), the fathers hold faculty positions at MSU as visiting scholars. As one of them advised, "you are talking with the winners". Thus, it is possible that these parents, who themselves are high achievers, have higher expectations for their children: their children, in turn, may perceive that they are not among the best students here in the US (especially in the social sciences), while they are considering mathematics and science as being too easy to be a challenge. 86 h.2.l.l.2 Age at the Time of the Interview Both among the Saudi and the Japanese children significantly negative correlations were observed between current age and perceived cognitive competence. As pointed out above, Harter C Pike suggest that younger children have a tendency to report relatively positive feelings of competence and acceptance. However, the Saudi children are the oldest group, and they scored highest in all four domains. Furthermore, if one considers this result together with the Japanese group (the only group younger being the US one), alternative explanations must be considered. h.2.l.l.2.l Family Observations Among the ten Japanese families, nine expressed concern regarding the suitability of their children's US school curriculum for the situation after the return to Japan. All nine families showed books they had brought with them and which they tried to follow while in the US. The one family that did not show Japanese school books, was the one that explicitely expressed discontentment with the Japanese school system and stated that the very reason that they had come to the US was the more relaxed school atmosphere in the US. In other words, the Japanese children may have judged their competence vis-a-vis two cultures: besides perceiving that they are not (yet) as cognitively competent in the new culture, as they were back home, they also perceive themselves no longer as competent in the culture they left behind. Conceivably, a similar phenomenon holds true for the Saudi children. They too undergo a process of additional, even formal, schooling to maintain their 'home culture competence'. During the interview it was salient that they were not concerned with academic matters, since they have an Saudi school here, but in how to handle some aspect of their culture that can be called 'everyday' cognition. Thus, one boy commented how since the age of three he would accompany his father wherever he would go, to learn 37 his future role. While here, these lessons cannot be learned. h.2.1.2 Physical Competence Domain Both Japanese and Korean children presented significantly negative correlations between age at the time of interview and perceived competence in the physical domain. As mentioned before, perceptions of popularity, i.e. peer acceptance, may be determined by perceptions of skills in sports, i.e. physical competence. With regard to the Japanese group, both correlations (physical and peer) were significant; with regard to the Koreans, only the physical domain was. It should be mentioned that all the Korean children interviewed have at least one sibling of the same sex with whom they play until they meet new friends. Furthermore, during the first months in the new environment, they usually meet other Korean children, with whom they would play and speak- Korean, in a second step in their adaptation to the new environment. This observation appears to be in accordance with Long's (1975) and Whalen 8 Freed's (1973) assertions that presence and age of siblings are one of the influential factors in a child's adjustment to a new environment. &.2.l.3 Peer Acceptance Domain h.2.l.3.l Age at Arrival While specific results differed by cultural group, in general the findings reflect negative relationships between perceived competence and variables of age at arrival, age at interview, time of arrival and time of departure. Harter (1982, p. 95) suggested that children's popularity may be dependent to a considerable degree on their skills in sports. The word popularity was used, she added, because she was investigating whether the social scale "actually assesses competence in 88 the sense of social skills or whether it taps a peer friendship dimension, which may be more highly related to factors such as athletic prowess than social competence per se" (p. 95). This may very well be the explanation for the result obtained in the present study as well as the significantly negative correlations between physical competence and peer acceptance and age at the time of the interview, which will be considered below. b.2.l.3.2 Age at the Time of the Interview As was mentioned, perception of less athletic prowess may be related to perception of less acceptance on the part of one's peers, and, that is what this finding suggested. The negative correlation among the Japanese children between peer acceptance and age at the time of the interview is another instance which may reflect dynamics similar to those suggested above. h.2.1.h Maternal Acceptance Domain All the solitary families interviewed belonged to extended families. Grandparents, aunts 8 uncles, cousins, maids were all part of the household that had been left behind. One may suggest that the mothers of these households received help and support from others in relation to household chores. When the families moved to the new environment, the mothers themselves were confronted with new tasks: language, household, and, in half of the families visited, the care of small children. All this may have provoked a perception of less maternal acceptance on the part of the older children of the families who were the ones interviewed. h.2.2 Influence of Length of Time Two hypotheses were formulated to test the correlations between length of time in the new environment and perceived competence. The fifth 39 hypothesis of the study stated: There is no relationship between length of time since the move across cultural boundaries and perceived competence. h.2.2.l Cognitive Competence Domain The positive correlation found among the Korean children between cognitive competence and length of time left until departure may have but a simple explanation: The more time left to stay in the new environment, the more the child expects to learn about this environment, and the more competent the child feels. h.2.2.2 Physical Competence Domain The results reported by the US children indicated a significantly negative correlation between length of time since the move and perceived physical competence. In connection with this finding, it must be considered that (a) the perception of having friends may depend on a perception of skills in sports, as discussed above, and (b) results lower than these found in US children in the peer acceptance domain were only found among the solitary children. Hence, rather than being an indication of negative perception of physical competence. These results may be considered an indication of less perception of peer acceptance. A.2.2.3 Peer Acceptance Domain The negative correlation found among Saudi children between the length of time since the move and perception of peer acceptance may relate to the finding discussed below (A.3.1), namely that a negative parents' perception of peer acceptance correlates with positive self perception of cognitive competence - which should generally increase with time. 90 A.2.2.h Maternal Acceptance Domain The positive correlation found among solitary children between maternal acceptance and length of time since the move may corroborate the finding discussed above (A.2.l.h), namely that the older the children were at the time of arrival, the less maternal acceptance they felt. The present findings suggest that with time, this perception changes, possibly because with more time abroad, the mother adjusted to her more demanding role abroad. The sixth hypothesis of the study stated: There is no relationship between. length of time until return to the home country and perceived competence. In the following, physical competence and peer acceptance domains will be discussed jointly. Among the Korean children, two significant correlations were found with respect to length of time until return: (a) a negative correlation with physical competence, and (b) positive correlation with peer acceptance. Though previous data suggest that the perception of having friends and being physically competent are related, the relationships observed here were not in the same direction. 5.2.3 Summary of Second Research Question In summary, while there were relatively few significant results, those results indicated that the pattern of relationships between various dimensions of age and time abroad, and perceived competence varied in the different groups studied. One possible explanation, which might be pursued in future studies, is that the various groups show differential competencies in the various domains. Not only are they sensitive to the domains salient in their own cultures, but they are also sensitive to the demands in other domains that are particular to the new environment. 9l h.3 Influence of Parents's Perceptions and Culture Shock Three hypotheses were formulated to answer the third general research question of this study: h.3.l Are the children's perceptions of their own com etence related to the parents perceptions of their chi dren's competence, as well as to the culture shock reported by the children and the parents? Influence of Parents' Perception of Children's Competence The seventh hypothesis of the study stated: There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence and the parents' perception of their children's competence. The results of Spearman rank correlations rejected the null-hypothesis in the following cases: 1. 2. The more positive the parents' perception of their ehildren's general ,adaptation. the more _pO$Ith¢ the perception of the audi children of their own physical competence: the, more positive the parents' perce tion of their children's social competence. the more POSIt've t e l. 2. 3. Japanese children's perception of their own physical competence, Korean children's perception of their peer and maternal acceptance, and solitary children's perception of their cognitive competence and maternal acceptance. the more positive the parents' perception of their children's peer acceptance. the more i. 2. negative the Saudi children's perception of their cognitive competence, and positive the solitary children's perception of their peer acceptance. Among these results, two aspects call for special attention because of their difficult explanations. The first one is of a general order and refers to the features of the subscales derived by cluster and 92 reliability analysis of the PPCC. On page h8 it was said in reference to the perception of social competence subscale that perhaps the conceptualization of the domains (cognitive, physical and social) was not confirmed. The present results appear to corroborate this assertion. 0n the other hand, one has to bear in mind that those domains are integrated in an individual, they are not separated as the different ingredients of a cake. They, as the final results of a culinary delicacy, hold together to characterize the individual child who goes to school and performs cognitive tasks, exercises, plays with friends and receives parental protection in order to survive. In sum, significant correlations were found but they were present in different domains in the various social groups. The other aspect which deserves explanation refers to the only negative correlation reported, namely in the case of Saudi children, the parents' positive perception of peer acceptance and the children's negative perception of cognitive competence. As mentioned before, the Saudi children of this study attend their own school, after the US school, from 3:30 to 5:30 pm. Everyday, they bring homework, which increases over the weekends. Hence, possibly the children's cognitive competence increases as the time to play with friends decreases, something that was mentioned repeatedly by the parents. h.3.2 Influence of Parents' Culture Shock on Perceived Competence The eighth hypothesis of this study stated: There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence, and the parents' culture shock. The results of Spearman rank correlations rejected the null-hypothesis in even fewer instances. Among Korean families, the higher the parents' alienation from the new environment, the lower the perceived cognitive and physical competence - again, an apparently selféexplanatory relationship. Although the Korean group is smaller than the others '(n - 7), five of the responding parents were mothers. The findings thus appear to be in accordance with Duster (l97h) who claimed that the 93 effect of mobility on the child is a by-product of the effects on the mother. The relationships found among the solitary families appear to point in the same direction: The higher the need for the own group, the lower perceived cognitive competence; and the higher the frustration level, the lower perceived physical competence. h.3.3 Influence of Children's Culture Shock on Perceived Competence The ninth and last hypothesis of the study stated: There is no relationship between the children's perception of their own competence and the children's culture shock. The results of Spearman rank correlations rejected the null-hypothesis in few instances: In the case of the Need for Own Group subscale, Japanese children reported that the lower this need, the more positive the perception of their own physical competence, as well as peer acceptance. It is possible that less need for linkage to the own group is related to more proficiency with English, which in turn allows for making more friends among children of other countries or cultures. In the present case, positive perceptions of skills in sports (physical competence) and peer acceptance are again evident in the Japanese group. The new aspect is that they appear in this context in children who report less need for linkage to their own group. Among the Korean and solitary children, the higher the reported need for their own group, the more negative the children's perception of their maternal acceptance. The direction of causality is not clear, though one might postulate that the lower the perceived maternal acceptance, the less the ability to leave one's own group. At the same time, the higher the maternal acceptance, the higher the acceptance of the new environment. It is interesting to note in this context that Harter (1983) suggests that "low mother acceptance, coupled with low perceived competence, may both serve to influence one's feelings of low peer acceptance" (p. 289). Furthermore, among Korean children, it is also observed with diminishing 9h need for companionship, the perceived cognitive competence and peer acceptance increases - again, the direction of causality may not be clear, but the relationship appears self-explanatory. h.3.h Summary of Third Research Question In summary, the utilization of a correlational design does not allow for a clear specification of the cause and effect relationships. Thus, in relation to the last three hypotheses, a case might be made that children's competence influences their parents' perceptions, as well as their own and their parents' ability to deal effectively with the new environment (as determined by the culture shock scale). 0n the other hand, parents' perceptions of children's competence, as well as culture shock, may well effect children's competence or at least their perception of the same. h.h Qualitative Observations While the data analysis of this study concentrated on the objective responses to scales, both children and parents responded to open-ended questions as well. Responses by the children to three of them [7] are of particular interest here. h.h.l Knowledge about Future Place of Residence Item 11 of the questionnaire asked, "Before you came to the USA [Michigan for US children] -- tell me -- what did you know about the people who live here in the USA [Michigan]?" Comparing the responses of the children in the various groups, certain trends become discernible. The Saudi children mentioned mostly personal attributes, such as "they [7] Items 11. 57 and 58 in Appendix C and D 95 are kind of nice”, "they are not mean", or even "they cannot speak two languages like us”. The Japanese children as a whole referred to more concrete things such as physical attributes: "American children have yellow hair", or geographical differences: "America is a big country, Japan is small”. A few mentioned such everyday concerns as "very hard meat” or "different bathtubs". In the Korean group, there were more "don't know" responses, as well as expressions of feelings, such as "I was afraid because I can't speak" or “they are kind“. In the solitary group, responses ranged from "knew almost nothing" to comments about "will have friends and go to school", though comments about 'English spoken here' dominated. The most surprising answers however came from the US children: "I didn't even know if they spoke English", "I think I knew that most of them were from other countries", and "knew about the weather, but didn't hear anything about the people". h.h.2 Correspondence between Anticipated and Encountered Environment Item 57 of the questionnaire asked, "Are the children in the USA [Michigan] just as you imagined them to be before you came here?" Again. Saudi children made more references to personal attributes, "much nicer", "yes, they are happy", "thought they were mean like in the movies", or even "they eat pork", and "boys and girls do bad stuff". The Japanese children continued to make references to physical attributes, such as "yellow hair" and "blue eyes”. One ten year old girl observed, "They don't like things everyday, and they don't know how 96 to play with more than one friend". The Korean children continued taciturn, while the solitary children also made references to personal characteristics, such as "different, they don't always play together", and general surprise, "thought was the same as in my country. Can't believe how it is different, the houses, places, everything". Again, even the US children noted considerable differences: "I imagined they would be somewhat like my friends, once I came here, it was totally different", ”even American children do things in big groups", and "Different. Didn't think they would talk a different language. The Michigan children are like the Illinois children". h.h.3 Adapting to the New Environment Finally, item 58 of the child interview asked, "How did you learn to understand?” The Saudi children made more references to the learning process as such: ”I watched“, "I listened and asked my Daddy", "talking, watching and learning from them" or "watching, listening, and imitating". Some of the children also made reference to school and Sesame Street. Among the Japanese and the solitary children, most made reference to their school, teachers, and the English as a second language classes. However, one solitary boy, six years at the time of arrival, stands out: “I decided to make up a club and invite some people. I did not know the words and they taught me. Now I use the high, hard words, and my parents don't know. It is funl" Among the Korean children, more references were made to friends, "from Korea", "Taiwan" or "Japan“, only secondly to the school. The answer of a six and a half year old girl appears to summarize the experience of 97 these children: “My friends taught me, my teacher told me, and I grow up by myself to speak English”. Once more, the US children made numerous references to differences in the language: "This is a hard one. When I didn't understand, I asked them what they meant“, or "As they talk more English, I got used to their accents”, or even, "Most of them speak English, and I know English“. One commented that "I didn't learn to understand them, I just know them", while one stated “It wasn't hard. I adapted very quickly, because I am an American”. h.h.h Summary Concerning the foreign children, it may be concluded that they indeed present some of the signs identified by Coelho 8 Stein (1980, p. 26) as pertaining to the uprooted: needs to change behavior patterns, learn new ones, as well as difficulties in communicating both verbally and nonverbally. What was more notable is that the US children appeared to show many of the same patterns, given the demographic composition of the two elementary schools and neighborhoods where the study took place. h.5 Limitations and Directions for Further Research There are various limitations to this study. With a view toward .future research, several will be considered. A.5.l Subject Pool As presented in the methodology chapter, no definitive information was available as to the number of potential subjects for this study. This contributed to the decision to work with large subsets, such as Saudi, Japanese and Korean families, as well as with the opposite extreme, i.e. solitary families. In view of what will be discussed below regarding cultural subgroups and socio-economic status, further research might 98 consider environments with a larger foreign population and/or several study sites. h.5.2 Confounded Attributes A note of caution needs to be added with respect to the national groups, and age and time variables, which appear to be confounded. Saudi children are the oldest, have been here longest, and expect to be here the longest. These age and time variations may well account for some of the group contrasts. On the other hand, Harter 8 Pike (l981b) point out that among the younger children there is a greater tendency to report relatively positive feelings of competence and acceptance. If age and group were confounded, the Saudi children, being the oldest, should have scored lowest: however, they were found to have scored highest in all four domains. h.5.3 Culture Of the four scales used in this study, the PSPCAYC was the most developed, being a thoroughly tested derivative of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children, which is based on applications with over #000 children. Even so, Harter 5 Pike (1981) report no consistent domains. Given that the population used by Harter and her associates was mostly US middle class, there is no reason to assume that the scale is easily applicable to the present population, even though it proved reliable. Further research might (a) include more (sub-) cultures, ’(b) solicit from different groups lists of activities linked to culture specific competencies, (c) validate the reported competencies with direct observations, where possible, on playgrounds, school activites, etc., and (d) try to differentiate and refine the cognitive and physical competence domains. 99 h.5.h Socio-economic Status Variables Socio-economic status was not considered in this study for several reasons: (a) the sample was already small, hardly allowing for more breakdowns: and (b) a common referent for SES would have been very complex. For example, using US SES categories, this study is comparing Japanese university teachers with students from other countries. Using indigenous SES categories would lead to a series of other complicating considerations, such as comparability or even differing bases for SES (education, wealth, profession, etc). Further research would need to consider these factors with more care. h.5.5 Cross-sectional versus Longitudinal Studies Data were collected at one point in time only. Obviously, it would have been desirable to have known more about the families before they even arrived here. Similarly desirable would be follow-up contacts with them after they return home. Considering especially the analysis of time since arrival and time left until departure, a cross-lagged panel design with repeated observations would provide more powerful information, particularly regarding any U-curve type effects. Pre- and post-moving observations would indeed be very difficult to arrange, however, further research might consider a cross-lagged design for the time during the stay in the new environment. h.6 Conclusions The present study attempted to explore how six to twelve year old children, who have moved across cultural boundaries, perceive the new environment and their competence in dealing with it. Parents' perception of their children's competence, and children's and parents' culture shock were investigated as well. The results of the study 100 showed significant differences between children of various cultural backgrounds, as well as sex with respect to the peer acceptance domain of the PSPCAYC. Considering age and length of stay variables, no significant relations were found in the sample as a whole. When national groups were examined individually, however, some significant effects were found providing partial support for the hypotheses of the study. The findings reflect, in general, negative correlations between perceived competence as measured by the PSPCAYC and variables of age at arrival, age at interview, time of arrival, and time of departure. In relation to children's perceived competence, as measured by the PSPCAYC, and the measures of cultural shock in children and parents, as well as the parents' perception of their children's competence, few significant relationships were observed. It may be noted, however, that some discernible trends were found, such as (a) consistently positive relationships between parental perception of children's competence and the children's own perception of competence and acceptance, and (b) negative correlations between maternal acceptance and children's culture shock (need for own group and acceptance of the new environment). It appears that national and cultural groups show differential competencies in the various domains. Not only are they sensitive to the domains salient in their own cultures, but they are also sensitive to the demands in other domains that are particular to the new environment. Furthermore, the results of the study support such previous findings as those presented by Turner C McClatchey (1978) who report: "The effects of mobility may not be a matter of degree: it may be advantageous to some, disadvantageous to others at different times". Additionally, the results suggested that social support, especially from their own group, helps newcomers to cope with the challanges they confront. As Adams 8 Lindemann (l97h) stressed, emotional and social support, which is available and used as well as motivation and readiness to respond to the environmental challenge (Mechanic, l97h) are aspects of great importance in the way that new arrivals deal with the new environment. l0. ll. 12. l3. IA. 15. l6. l7. 18. REFERENCES Adams J. E Lindemann E. Coping with long-term ., 8 disability. IN oelho et al,, l97h. 8 c Ahmed P. I., Coelho, s. v. (Eds) Toward a new definition of health. New York: Plenum, 1979. All rt. G- P r nal A h I i al int r r ta n. N Yor ? Holt, 19378 so it,’ psyc 0 09 5 B P B tio ew Argyal. A. Foundatizn. for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund Argyle, M., a Little, . personalitp traits apply to soCIal behavior? Journal of Social ehavior. 972.2. Bardo, J. W., e Bardo, O. J. Sociodemo ra hic correlates of adjustment for Americgn mi rants in Aus ia. Journal of Social Psychology. 19 o 11. 255- ~26o. Becker, R. H. The effects of mobility on the social adjustment and elf— esteem of middle and up per- class suburban children aged through 11 Dissertation Abstracts. I973. 34. 20 51A Berr , ecological approach to cross- cultural J. esvchelggv. NIlederlgnds Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie. 1975. Bogat, G. A. Jones, J. W., 8 Jason, L. A. School transitions: Preventive intervention following an elementargfl school closing. Journal of Community Psychology. 91980 8. Bower, E. M. The modification, mediation and utilization of stress dur ng the school rs. American Journal of Orthopsychihtry. 1969. 34. 66hyzg7. Bowlby . Grief and mourning in inf gncy and early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the C ild. 1920.15,.99-5. B lby . f . ngchoanalysi;?cl3213? 42mogppiggo. International Journal of Bowlby J. Pathological mourning and childhood m urnin ggurngl. of American PsychoanalytIcal Association. 19 1b.1. Bronfenbrenner, U. ace] pay of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UT Press, 9 Cattel. . B. The scientific analysis of personality. Chicago: Aldine, 1965. Coddington, R. D. The significance of life events as etiologic factors in the disease of children. II: A study of a normal %gu5etion. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1972. 16,. Coelho, G. V., Hambur D. A., 8 Adams, J. E. Eds) c . ’0 adaptation New York: gasic Books, Igyu ( ~ ”Plng d c lh G. v. eAh d, P. I. . N Meek oPlenum, $980. me Jprooting and Development ew lOl l9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3l. 32. 33- 3h. 35- 36. l02 1 nd Coelho, G. V., 8 Stein, J. J. Change, vulnerab' , a I lho G copin tresses of uprootin and overcrowdin Ahmedg 19 0. g 9. Coleman, P. Do chiédren suffer from a nomadic way of life? The Times. May 22, Cottrell, S. 8. Mixed children: Some observations and speculatIons. IN Hunter 5 Nice, I97 . I It N Co David, H. P. Healthy family lggunctioning: Crosscultural perspectives. IN Coelho G Ahmed, 0. Dawson, F. An analytical studyi nof the effects of maternal employment of same- sex chum denial preadolescence, and. of residential mobility on self-actualization achievement In sample of adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts. I969. 31. 92hA Dayton. A. N. new facts on mental disorders. Springfield. IL: Charles A. Thomas, Dien, D. S. CVenacke, E. Self concept and parental identity of young Mults with mixed Caucasian-Ja anese menggge. Journal of Abnormal wand Social Psychology.l .59.£ 8-u . Din es, N.,& Duffy, L. Culture and com etence. IN A. Mar- sel R. Tharp, T. Ciborowski Perspeftives on cross- -cultural psychology New York: Academic Pres Dixon. 8 Brown. M. B. DMDP-TD Biomedical Computer mgramfgn P-Series. Berkeley, CA: University of Cal IfornIa Dollard. J. &.Milla ard N. Personality and psychotherapy.. New York: McGraw-HIII, I950. _ Epstein, S. Traits are alive and well. IN D. Magnusson 8 N. Endler (Eds). Personality at the crossroads. Hillsdale. NY: Erlbaum, I977. Erikson, E. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, I952. Eysenck. H. |.. 8 Eysenck s. B. G. 9Pgrsonality structure and measurement. San Diego, CA: Knapp. l 6 . Falik, L. H. The effects of high geographic mobility on the academic and social adjustment of ildren to their school envnronments. Dissertation Abstracts. 1966. 30. IOISA F ' h l D. . N Y k: ngISnf l9h5. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis aw or Gibson, Education for the child in a service family. Royal Air GForce [ducation Bulletin. l973. 10. Ginter, M. M. , s Felner, R. D. The use of school based support systems for preventive programming. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Asgoication in New York, Septem er I979 (cited by Bogat at al , Glennon, .% 5 Heisz, J. R. An observational approach to the t . ziri‘iIiI-‘cfi r‘s‘l’éiiiig}? III? II; III ..IIII'I" 0’ ”WWW 37- 38. 39- ho. kl. #2. h}. bk. h5. h6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 50. 5I. 52. 53'” fiandhoo , l03 Goldfried, M. R. 8 D' Zurilla, T. A. A behavioral-anal tic model of assessing competence. IN C. D. Sp ielberger ( D), Current topics in 96glinical and community psychology. New York: Academic Press, G ld t , K. IIIIIIII, III I.IIIII IIIIII:.III III ”III II IIIIIIIIIII’III Gordon, H. E., 8 Gordon, K. K. Emotional disorders of children in a rapidly gr §wi4 ng guburb.1ntennatIonal Journal of SocIal Psychiatry. 1 5 4. Groos, K. The play of man. New York: Appleton, l90l. Guilford, J. P. Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, l959. Harter,S Pleasure derived from cggn igive challenge and mastery. Child Development. 1975.45. Harter, S. Developmental differences in the manifestation mastery motivation problem solving tasks. Child Development. 1975. 46. 370-38 Harter. S. The effects of social reinforcement and task difficulty level on the pleasure derived by normal and retarded children from co nitive challenges and mastery. Journal of Experienental Chil Psychology. 19 7. 21. #7 Harter, S. Effectance motivation recon idered: Toward a developmental model Damon Development. 197. .3 -6h- Harter, S. A model of mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental chan es. A d C ll Ed . . III'II. III-LII, II. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII... “I I I’IIIII'III Harter, S. A new self- re ort scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in e classroom. Motivationslb and iggogmational components. Developmental Psychology. 19 . 17. Harter, S. A developigentall perspective on some parameters of self- regulation In chi ren P. Karolys F. H. Konfer (Eds) elf-flenagsment and 9gghavion Change: from Theory to Practice ew York ergamon. Harter, S. Developmental Perspectives on the Self- System. In S. No Hetherinoton (ed). ”a andhogk of Chbld Psycholog gyfleonl f: flcéalizagion, PersonalIty, ocIal evelopnent. Yor : H t . 5.. s P k . Th he P t Scale f Pence d Cohegtence and Acceptangg;m for Youhs aghildnen. genver. IVS: UnI ersity of Denve Harter. S . 5 Pike. R. The Pict PI 7 Scal f Pas ceived €82’”fiii3€i.i’.".’ IIIIIIIIII III: III.iII?IIII II’IIIIIII...III°II Hartman, . nts on the psychoanalytic theory of the ego. Psychoanalytic cStudy of the Child. 1950. 5. 7h-95. w. Peer System. In E. H. {Hetherington (ed), 7w Chglz Psy cholog p“, Vol Sogéa. lization, ensona Ity, fSDClD evelopnent. ew York: wIiey. 5h. 55. 56. 57- 58. 59. 60. 6]. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.0 72. 10h Heath. D. Mata urity and competence: A transcultural view.. New York: Gardner, l977. Hendrick, go during infancy. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. I9h2. d11. 33 53? Hirschowitzt R. G. Groups to help people cope with the tasks of transitIon. IN R. G. Hirschowitz 5 B. Levy (Eds) changing mental health scene. New York: Spectrum Press. 1976 Huhr2 H. H. Marginal children of war: An exploratory study of AmerIcan- Korean child nt rnational Journal of the Sociology of the Family.e I972. 5. io- -20. Janis, l. L. Vigilance and decision making in personal crises. lN Coelho et al. . 5 Klein D. C., GRoss Kindergarten entry. A study of role transItion. IN H. fiarad (Ed) Crisis interventign.' Selected readings. New York. JFamily Service AssociatIo Lambert, w. E., 5 Klineberg, 0. Children's viewsN eof foreign Mp A cross- na ional study. Yor App eton- Century- Crofts, Laosa, L. H. Social competence in childhood. Toward a deve- lopmental, socioculturall relativistic paradigm. w. Kent 5 J. E. R0 f (EdS) Primary graventign. psychopathology. Hanover, NH. U Press of New Eng and Lazarus, R. S. A. Acognitively oriented psychologist looks at bIofeedback. American sycnologist. l975. 2. 550 Leifer, M. Psychological changes accompan ing gregnancg. and motherhood. Genetic Psychology onograpns. 177. . 55 9 Lewin, K. dynamic theory of personality. New York: HcGraw-Hill, l935. Long, L. H. Does migration interfere with chigdren' s progress in school? BSociology of Education. 1975. 48. 39 38l Malzberg. & Lee E. 5. Migration anz mental disease. New York. Social Science esearch CounCIl, Maslow. A. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. l9Sh. Mechanic. 0. Social structure and personal adaptation: Some neglected dimensions. IN Coelho et a] , l97 . . Howrer. 0. learning theory and personality dynamics. New York: Ronald Press. 1950. Nie, N. H., Hull C. H. Jenkins. . Steinbrenner Bent. D. H. 3P5 - StatIstical Package Sign the Social Sciences. 2nd edition. New York. McGraw-HI Children from families who move frequently. IliglIligIIt.J I97“. 10. Owen. J. E. The effect of a low incidence of student mobility as compared to a high incidence of student mobility on the attitudes seventh grade students. Dissertation Abstracts. I97I. 32. 3369A 73- 7h. 75- 76. 77- 78. 79- 80. 81. 82. 83. 8A. 85. 86. 87. 88. 105 Pareek, U., 5 Roa, T. V. Cross-Cultural Surve s and InterViewing. IN H. C. Triandis 5 J. H. Berry (Eds) ”andbook 0f Cross-Cu tural PsyChology. vol 2: Methodology. Boston: Allyn 5 Bacon, l980. Parkes, M: C. Psycho-social transitions: A field of study. Social Science andiflbdicine. l97l 5. 101-115- Pedersen, F. A., 5 Sullivan, E. J. . Relationships amon geogra hic . mobility, parental attitude and emotiona istur ance in ghiidren. American Journal of arthopsychiatry. l96h. 34. 575-5 0. Piaget, J. Need and significance of cross-cultural studies in genetia ps chology. In J. v. Berry 5 P. R. Dasen, Culture and cognition. ondon: Methuan, l97h. Piaget, J., 5 Neil, A. M. The development in children of the idea of the homeland and of relations with other cguntries. International Social Science Bulletin. 195l. 3. 561-57 . Pretzlaff, R. E. The relationship of transiency and geo raphic mobility to the social studies, understandings, attitg es and gziéls of Sixth-graders. Dissertation Abstracts. l9 9. 30. Primavera, J., Ginter, H. H., Felner, R. D., 5 Cauce, A. M. The impact of school transitions: A focus for preventive efforts. Pa er presented at the meeting of the American Psychologica As§OCIation in New York, September l979 (cited by Bogat et al.. 19 0). Ritchie, E. C. The effects of school changes on children - a review. Torch. 1965 Robertson, J., 5 Robertson, J. (Producers). John, 17 months. Nine da g in a residential nursery. Nacton. lpswnch: Concord Film, 15 9. R0 ers, C. 0n becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mi fling, l96l. Spradley. J.,P. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt. Rinehart 5 Winston, l979. . Stricglaad,.R..C. Ihehmobgliay an? achéevement 3f segegted epen en unior i so oo pupi s in ermany. isser 5 ion Abstracts. +970. 32. AAA. Tietze, C., Lemkau, P., 5 Cooper, Personality disorders and M. 383883] mobility. American Journal of Sociology. l9h2. 48. Thornton, K. A survey: Educational conditions of foreign children in an American pubéic school sgséem. Disasrtation Ahstracts_ Internation I. 19.0. .40. l lA. octoral dissertation, Michigan tate University, l979 . Triandia,bh. Ci Altheogetica] framewar? fortthe atudk of bi; in ua - icu ura ap a ion. n erna ion; gypgw 0 Applied Psychology. l980. 29. 5-16. Tutner, l., 5 McClatchey L. Mobility school attainment and i3} stafgfi. “gaggciation of Educational Psychologists Journal,. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 9h. 95- 96. l06 Useem, R. 5 Downie, R. D. Third-culture kids. Today’s Education. 1976.103'105- ' S. Goverment, Department of the Army, Research Department. U. gin yosggShyandHaggiggQgg. DC:An. SanégeeggmenngrfggiaggSffice, 1975 Nerkman, S. L. Coming home: Adjustment problems of adolescents whoL gave Alved (Edoyerszgs, ;N 3h.C . Feinsaein t I lOVBCC ID! 5 D 0 e C n S C 18 P V8 0 m n 8 and clinical studies. Vol VI Ehfcaggw y Chicggon gresse im Whalen, T. E., 5 Fried, M. A. Geographic mobility and its effects on student achievement. Journal of [ducational Research. 1973. 67. 163-l65- White,R . Motivation reconsidered: A concept of competence. Psychological Review. l959. 66. 297- 333 White, R. Competence as anIfa (Eect of personal growth. IN M. w. Kent 5 J. . Ro ds) Primary reventi n. psychopathology. Hanover, NH: UPress of New Eng and, Wolfenstein, M. afterg'57 A psychological essay. London: Routledge and Kegan0 Pau Wooster, A. D. , 5 Harris,G . Concepts of self and others in gghlgg mobile service boys. [ducational Research. 1972 . 14. 107 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology East Lansing. MI 48824-1117 Psychology Research Building November 30. 1983 APPENDIX A Dear Parents: As a foreign student and child psychologist. I have often wondered how my daughter has reacted to our move to East Lansing. and how she will cope with our return. Presently. I am working on my dissertation. which deals with children’s reactionsto their new environment: How do they learn to deal with it? How do they learn to get along with new friends. in a new school. for some in a different language? I would like to ask your cooperation in this study by allowing me or my research assistant to talk to you and to (one of) your child(ren). Permission has been obtained from the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. as well as from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. In a few days. we will call you to find out whether you agree to participate in this study. Assuming you do agree to participate. we will set a time for us to meet with you at your convenience in you home. We wish to talk to one parent. and one child, between the age of six and twelve. We expect to spend a total of 1 1/4 hour with your family. If you have any questions. please feel free to call me at home at 355-7800. At the conclusion of the study, I shall be happy to tell you about the findings. Thank you very much in advance for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, Isolda de Araujo Gdnther Dr. Ellen A.Strommen Judy Callender PhD Candidate in Psychology Professor of Psychology Research Assistant MSU is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Institution 108 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology East Lansing, MI 48824-1117 Psychology Research Building November 30. 1983 Signed: Date: APPENDIX 3 Departmental Research Consent Form I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study conducted by Isolda de Araajo Gdnther. under the supervision of Dr. Ellen A. Strommen, professor of psychology. The study has been explained to me. and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I will be interviewed. as well as one of my children. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study. or the participation of my child. at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence. and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions. results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that. at my request. I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. The title of the experiment is: Foreign Children’s Reactions to a Transitional Environment 109 APPENDIX C Child Interview Schedule IDENTIFICATION What time is it now ID Number ................................................................... INTRODUCTION I am a psychologist who studies children and adolescents. I talk with both of them. but sometimes I wonder if my impressions about them. about what they think and do is different from the way they see things. I would like to know how you see your life. your friends. your school. I would like to take some notes and to tape record our talk. because that way I can go over it later. Would that be okay? PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS To establish rapport. deal with the following topics: 1. What is your name? 2. Can you write it for me? 5. Who else lives with you at your home? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix C 110 Foreign Child Interview Schedule 6. Where did you live before coming here? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 7. What language do you speak there? ABOUT COMING TO THE USA 8. Can you tell me when you and your family came to the USA? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 9. Is this your first stay in the USA? 10. You told me that you had lived in ----- before coming here. Tell me what you remember about living there? Before you came to the USA -- tell me -- what did you know about the people who live here in the USA? 11. If NO. Probe a little. nothing at all? 12. If/When YES. Who told you about this? Appendix C 111 Foreign Child Interview Schedule ABOUT F000 13. What can you tell me about the food you ate in ----- ? 14. What do you eat at school here? Is it the same as in ----- ? What do you like better? 15. What kind of food do you eat at home? Is it the same as in ----- ? What do you like better? 16. Is the food at home the same as in school? 17. What do you like most about the food in the USA? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 18. What do you like least about the food in the USA? Appendix C 112 Foreign Child Interview Schedule ABOUT LANGUAGE You said you speak ---- language in ---- country? 19. Do you speak ----- at home? 20. Do you speak ----- at school? 21. In school. do you speak ----- with other children from ----- ? Can you tell me why? 23. If NO. Why? 24. Tell me -- how do you feel about that? 25. And on the playground. do you speak ----- with other children from ----- ? 26. If YES. What do the other children say. when you speak ----- on the playground? 27. If NO, Why? Appendix C Foreign Child Interview Schedule 28. 29. Tell me -- how do you feel about that? Do you speak ----- in your friends’ homes? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ABOUT CLOTHES 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. What can you tell me about the clothes you wore in ----- ? Did you wear a uniform to school? What do you wear to school here? 113 Appendix C 114 Foreign Child Interview Schedule ABOUT PLAYING 38. Tell me -- how did you play with other children in ----- ? What was it like? 39. When you are at school now. what do you and your friends play? Tell me -- who do you usually play with? 40. at school? 41. at home? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 42. on the playground? 43. When you are at home. what do you and your friends play? Appendix C 115 Foreign Child Interview Schedule ABOUT HOME 44. In ----- . did you live in a house or an apartment? 45. Where you live now. is it larger or smaller than your [home/apartment] in 46. Tell me -- what do you like most about your apartment here in the USA? 47. And. tell me. what do you like least about your apartment here in the USA? ABOUT FRIENDS 48. Tell me -- which friends do you remember from ----- ? 49. Who are your friends here? 50. What country are they from? Appendix C 116 Foreign Child Interview Schedule 51. How/where did you meet these friends? 52. What do you do together? 53. Do you play together after school? 54. Do you go to your friends’ home? 55. Do your friends come to your home? 56. Do your friends do everything the same way you do? 57. Are the children in the USA just as you imagined them to be before you came here? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 58. How did you learn to understand them? Appendix C 117 Foreign Child Interview Schedule ABOUT SCHOOL 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 66. In case appropriate: You said you went to school in ----- ? What was your SCHOO] 11KB there? Tell me about your school here? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee When you were in ----- what did you think it would be like to go to school here in the USA? What things does the teacher tell you that are the same as what your parents tell you? Are there things that your teacher at school tells you to do that your parents do not allow you to do at home? What things do your friends tell you to do that are the same as your parents tell you at home? Can you tell me things your friends tell you to do that your parents do not allow you to do at home? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix C Foreign Child Interview Schedule STRUCTURED QUESTIONS Now I would like to ask you some questions. and would like you to tell me. if these things happen to you ’all the time’. ’sometime’. or ’never’., Hand Child a card with the alternatives. To help you remember. here is a card with the answers. See... EXplain card. pointing to the three alternatives. For you and you and you Now. instance. if I ask you: Do you sleep at night? would answer. PAUSE. (expected response YES). if I ask you: Do you eat Pizza at school? would answer. PAUSE. (expected response SOMETIMES). if I ask you: Do you drive a real car? would answer. PAUSE. (expected response NO). let’s begin: 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. Do Do Do Do DO you you you you you ever feel that you have a lot of friends? ................... enjoy going out without your family? ........................ dislike people speaking to you in English? .................. feel happy at home? ......................................... ever think that you will miss your American friends after you go back home? ............................................ Do you enjoy to speak English? ..................................... Do you ever want to play only with other children from ----- [own country]? ..................................................... Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do you you you you you you you you you you you dislike going out without your family? ...................... feel happy while in school? ................................. enjoy people speaking to you in English? .................... ever miss your friends from ----- ? ......................... ever want to play only with American children? .............. ever want to go back to ----- ? ............................. like to speak ----- rather than English? .................... ever feel lonely while at home here in the USA? ............. ever miss the food from ------ ? ............................ ever feel that you do not have any friends? ................. ever feel lonely while in school? ........................... Appendix c 119 Foreign Child Interview Schedule THREE THINGS LIKED MOST Please tell me three things you like about living here. 85. A eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee THREE THINGS LIKED LEAST And now. please tell me three things you don’t like about living here. 88. A Appendix C 120 Foreign Child Interview Schedule SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRIEND FROM HOME COMING HERE Imagine that you have friends in ----- who also want to come to East Lansing. It is a family with a father. a mother. a son and a daughter. They wrote to you and asked your help about moving here. 91. What advice would you give them? After waiting and noting spontaneous responses. ask specifically: 92. What advice would you give to the father? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 93. What advice would you give to the mother? 94. What advice would you give to the SO”? 95. What advice would you give to the daughter? HARTER SCALE. Finally, I would like to ask you a few more questions. What time is it now? 121 APPENDIX D Child Interview Schedule IDENTIFICATION What time is it now ID Number ................................................................... INTRODUCTION I am a psychologist who studies children and adolescents. I talk with both of them. but sometimes I wonder if my impressions about them. about what they think and do is different from the way they see things. I would like to know how you see your life. your friends. your school. I would like to take some notes and to tape record our talk. because that way I can go over it later. Would that be okay? PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS To establish rapport. deal with the following topics: 1. What is your name? 2. Can you write it for me? 5. Who else lives with you at your home? Appendix D 122 US Child Interview Schedule 6. 10. Where did you live before coming here? ABOUT COMING TO MICHIGAN Can you tell me when you and your family came to Michigan? Is this your first stay in Michigan? You told me that you had lived in ----- before coming here. Tell me what you remember about living there? Before you came to Michigan -- tell me -- what did you know about the people who live here in Michigan? 11. If NO. Probe a little. nothing at all? 12. If/When YES. Who told you about this? Appendix D 123 US Child Interview Schedule 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ABOUT FOOD What can you tell me about the food you ate in ----- ? What do you eat at school here? Is it the same as in ----- ? What do you like better? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee What kind of food do you eat at home? Is it the same as in ----- ? What do you like better? Is the food at home the same as in school? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee What do you like most about the food in Michigan? What do you like least about the food in Michigan? Appendix D US Child Interview Schedule ABOUT LANGUAGE 30. Do you find that children here in Michigan speak differently than in ABOUT CLOTHES 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ----- previous state of residence? What can you tell me about the clothes your were in ----- ? Did you wear a uniform to school? ........ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee you wear at home? -- how do you feel about the kind of clothes you wear here? 125 Appendix D 126 US Child Interview Schedule ABOUT PLAYING 38. Tell me -- how did you play with other children in ----- ? What was it like? 39. When you are at school now. what do you and your friends play? Tell me -- who do you usually play with? 40. at school? 41. at home? 42. on the playground? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 43. When you are at home. what do you and your friends play? Appendix D 127 US Child Interview Schedule ABOUT HOME 44. In ----- . did you live in a house or an apartment? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 46. Tell me -- what do you like most about your apartment here in Michigan? 47. And. tell me. what do you like least about your apartment here in Michigan? ABOUT FRIENDS 48. Tell me -- which friends do you remember from ----- ? 49. Who are your friends here? 50. What country are they from? Appendix D 128 US Child Interview Schedule 51. How/where did you meet these friends? 52. What do you do together? 53. Do you play together after school? 54. Do you go to your friends’ home? 55. Do your friends come to your home? 56. Do your friends do everything the same way you do? 57. Are the children in Michigan Just as you imagined them to be before you came here? 58. How did you learn to understand them? Appendix D 129 US Child Interview Schedule ABOUT SCHOOL 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. In case appropriate: You said you went to school in ----- ? What was your school like there? Tell me about your school here? When you were in ----- what did you think if would be like to go to school here in Michigan? What things does the teacher tell you that are the same as what your parents tell you? Are there things that your teacher at school tells you to do that your parents do not allow you to do at home? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee What things do your friends tell you to do that are the same as your parents tell you at home? Can you tell me things your friends tell you to do that your parents do not allow you to do at home? Appendix D US Child Interview Schedule STRUCTURED QUESTIONS Now I would like to ask you some questions. things happen to you ’all the time’. ’sometime’. Hand child a card with the alternatives. To help you remember, and would like you to tell me, or ’never’. here is a card with the answers. See... Explain card. pointing to the three alternatives. For instance. you would answer. and if I ask you: you would answer. and if I ask you: PAUSE, PAUSE. (expected (expected response YES). Do you eat Pizza at school? Do you drive a real car? if I ask you: Do you sleep at night? response SOMETIMES). you would answer. PAUSE. (expected response NO). Now. let’s begin: 67. Do you ever feel that you have a lot of friends? ................... 68. Do you enjoy going out without your family? ........................ 70. Do you feel happy at home? .......................................... 73. Do you ever want to play only with other children from ----- previous state of residence? ....................................... 74. Do you dislike going out without your family? ...................... 75. Do you feel happy while in school? ................................. 77. Do you ever miss your friends from ----- ? ......................... 79. Do you ever want to go back to ----- ? ............................. 81. Do you ever feel lonely while at home here in Michigan? ............ 82. Do you ever miss the food from ------ ? ............................ 83. Do you ever feel that you do not have any friends? ................. 84. Do you ever feel lonely while in school? ........................... 130 if these Appendix D 131 US Child Interview Schedule THREE THINGS LIKED MOST Please tell me three things you like about living here. 85. A THREE THINGS LIKED LEAST And now. please tell me three things you don’t like about living here. 88. A eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix D 132 US Child Interview Schedule SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRIEND FROM HOME COMING HERE Imagine that you have friends in ----- who also want to come to East Lansing. It is a family with a father. a mother. a son and a daughter. They wrote to you and asked your help about moving here. 91. What advice would you give them? After waiting and noting spontaneous responses. ask specifically: 92. What advice would you give to the father? 93. What advice would you give to the mother? 94. What advice would you give to the son? 95. What advice would you give to the daughter? HARTER SCALE. Finally. I would like to ask you a few more questions. What time is it now? 133 APPENDIX E Parent Interview Schedule IDENTIFICATION Date of Interview ...... What time is it now ID Number ................................................................... INTRODUCTION As you know. I am a psychologist who studies children and adolescents. In this study I am interested in finding out the children’s reactions to a new environment. I just talked to ----- name of the child about her/his reactions to coming to the USA. Now I would like to ask you some questions as well. both about your own reaction to your move here. as well as your observations about your child’s reactions. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS To establish rapport. deal with the following topics initially: 1. How long have you been in Michigan? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2. Have you lived elsewhere in the US before? Appendix E 134 Foreign Parent Interview Schedule 8. How did you get to know East Lansing? i.e.. about where to buy food. clothing. household. doctor? 4. Are you a student? What is your field of study? What degree? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 5. What does your spouse do. is he/she also a student? 6. When do you plan to go back to ----- ? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix E 135 Foreign Parent Interview Schedule ABOUT YOUR FAMILY 7. Did you come here initially with your family. or did they come later? 8. How many children do you have? Are they boys or girls. what are their ages? 9. How did ----- name of the child interviewed react. when you first spoke about moving to the USA? Did you prepare ----- in any way for the move? 10. If YES. What did you do? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 11. If NO. Why not? Appendix E Foreign Parent Interview Schedule 12. Do After waiting an noting (above this line) any spontaneous responses. you think ----- has changed since coming here? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee specifically: Do 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. you think ----- changed in her/his relation with father mother eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee friends eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 136 ask Appendix E 137 Foreign Parent Interview Schedule STRUCTURED QUESTIONS In the following. I would like to ask you some questions about your reactions to coming to Michigan/USA. I have prepared a series of statements. and would like you to tell me if these things happen to you ’all the time’. ’often’. ’sometime’. ’seldom’ or ’never’. Hand parent a card with the alternatives Here is a card with the answers. See... Explain card. pointing to the five alternatives. All you would have to tell me is the number that goes with the statement. If you don’t have any questions. let’s begin. 20. Do you ever feel that you have a lot of friends? ................... 21. Do you enjoy going shopping without your family? ................... 22. Do you ever miss your family and friends in ----- home country? 23. Do you dislike people speaking to you in English? .................. 24. Do you ever feel confined in your home here in the USA? ............ 25. Do you like to speak ----- rather than English at home? ............ 26. Are you ever concerned about your child’s ability to speak ----- ? 27. Do you ever want to have more American friends? .................... 28. Do you feel happy at home? ......................................... 29. Do you ever miss the food from ----- ? ............................. 30. Are you ever unable to relax in the company of Americans? .......... 31. Are you ever proud of your child(ren)’s progress in English? ....... 32. Do you dislike going shopping without your family? ................. 33. Do you like to speak English? ...................................... 34. Do you ever feel that you do not have any friends? ................. 35. Do you ever wish to go back to ----- ? ............................. 36. Do you ever need the help of your child(ren) in social situations? 37. Do you ever think about missing U.S. food after you go back home? 38. Do you like for people to speak to you in English? ................. 39. Are you ever unable to relax in the company of others from ----- home country? ...................................................... 40. Do you ever feel uncomfortable while attending class? .............. 41. Do you ever feel uncomfortable speaking ----- in front of Americans? 42. Do you ever feel embarrassed when asking your child(ren)’s help in social situations? .............................................. 43. Are you ever concerned that your child(ren) will have difficulty after returning to ----- ? .......................... . .............. 44. If YES. What kind of difficulty? Appendix E 138 Foreign Parent Interview Schedule SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRIEND FROM HOME COMING HERE Imagine that you have friends in ----- who also want to come to East Lansing. It is a family of four (father. mother. a son and a daughter). They write to you and ask your advice about coming here to study. 45. What advice would you give them? After waiting and noting (above this line) any spontaneous responses. ask specifically: 46. What advice would you give to the father? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 47. What advice would you give to the mother? 48. What advice would you give to the son? 49. What advice would you give to the daughter? Appendix E 139 Foreign Parent Interview Schedule THREE THINGS LIKED Please tell me the three things your child likes to do most: 46. A THREE THINGS OISLIKED Please list the three things your child least likes to do: 49. A eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HARTER SCALE: Finally. I would like to ask you a few more questions. What time is it now : Appendix E Foreign Parent Interview Schedule Name of the Child ...... ID Number Please indicate how you see your child in terms of the following statements. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. My My My My My My My My My My My My My My not child seems to like living in East Lansing Child seems to like SChOOl child likes to do school work child prefers to figure out problems on his/her own child’s friends have mostly a different nationality child relies on others for help and guidance (i.e., father. mother. brother. sister) child has difficulties in making friends child enjoys being with friends child prefers to watch. rather than play in sports Child likes sports child prefers to play alone Child l1k08 DOW BCIIVltlBS child’s friends are mostly from our home country child prefers to play in sports rather than watch very much very much 140 141 APPENDIX E Parent Interview Schedule IDENTIFICATION Name: Address: Phone: Date of Interview: What time is it now: ID Number ................................................................... INTRODUCTION As you know. I am a psychologist who studies children and adolescents. In this study I am interested in finding out the children’s reactions to a new environment. I just talked to ----- name of the child about her/his reactions to coming to Michigan. Now I would like to ask you some questions as well. both about your own reaction to your move here. as well as your observations about your ohild’s reactions. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS To establish rapport. deal with the following topics initially: 1. How long have you been in Michigan? 2. Where did you live before coming to Michigan? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix F 142 US Parent Interview Schedule 3. How did you get to know East Lansing? i.e.. about where to buy food. clothing. household. doctor? 4. Are you a student? What is your field of study? What degree? 5. What does your spouse do. is he/she also a student? 6. Do you plan to go back to ----- ? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix F 143 US Parent Interview Schedule ABOUT YOUR FAMILY 7. Did you come here initially with your family. or did they come later? 8. How many children do you have? Are they boys or girls. what are their ages? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 9. How did ----- name of the child interviewed react. when you first spoke about moving to Michigan? Did you prepare ----- in any way for the move? 10. If YES. What did you do? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 11. If NO. Why not? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix F US Parent Interview Schedule 12. Do you think ----- has changed since coming here? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee After waiting an noting (above this line) any spontaneous responses. specifically: Do 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. you think ----- changed in her/his relation with father friends SChOOl eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 144 85k Appendix F 145 US Parent Interview Schedule STRUCTURED QUESTIONS In the following. I would like to ask you some questions about your reactions to coming to Michigan/USA. I have prepared a series of statements. and would like you to tell me if these things happen to you ’all the time’, ’often’. ’sometime’. ’seldom’ or ’never’. Hand parent a card with the alternatives Here is a card with the answers. See... Explain card. pointing to the five alternatives. All you would have to tell me is the number that goes with the statement. If you don’t have any questions. let’s begin. 20. Do you ever feel that you have a lot of friends? ................... 21. Do you enjoy going shopping without your family? ................... 22. Do you ever miss your family and friends in ----- previous state of residence? ....................................... 24. Do you ever feel confined in your home here in Michigan? ........... 27. Do you ever want to have more friends from Michigan? ............... 28. Do you feel happy at home? ......................................... 29. Do you ever miss the food from ----- ? ............................. 30. Are you ever unable to relax in the company of people from Michigan? 32. Do you dislike going shopping without your family? .............. ... 34. Do you ever feel that you do not have any friends? ................. 35. Do you ever wish to go back to ----- ? ............................. 40. Do you ever feel uncomfortable while attending class? .............. Appendix F 146 US Parent Interview Schedule SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRIEND FROM HOME COMING HERE Imagine that you have friends in ----- who also want to come to East Lansing. It is a family of four (father. mother. a son and a daughter). They write to you and ask your advice about coming here to study. 46. What advice would you give them? After waiting and noting (above this line) any spontaneous responses. ask specifically: 47. What advice would you give to the father? 48. What advice would you give to the mother? 49. What advice would you give to the son? ................................................................ 50. What advice would you give to the daughter? Appendix F 147 US Parent Interview Schedule THREE THINGS LIKED Please tell me the three things your child likes to do most: 47. A THREE THINGS DISLIKED Please list the three things your child least likes to do: 50. A eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HARTER SCALE: Finally. I would like to ask you a few more questions. What time is it now .... : Appendix F US Parent Interview Schedule Name of the Child ...... ID Number Please indicate how you see your child in terms of the following statements. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. My My My My My My My My My My My My My My not very child seems to like living in East Lansing child seems to like school child likes to do school work child prefers to figure out problems on his/her own child’s friends have mostly a different nationality child relies on others for help and guidance (i.e.. father. mother. brother. sister) child has difficulties in making friends child enjoys being with friends child prefers to watch. rather than play in sports child likes sports child prefers to play alone Child likes new activities child’s friends are mostly from our home country child prefers to play in sports rather than watch MUCH very much 148 Post Identification Date of Interview ...... Time of observations APPENDIX B Interview Observations ID Number ................................................................... Environment 1. HOW comfortable was the environment? 2. Number of people present in the home. [on a scale from 1 (low) to 5] 3. Any appliances that interfered? (TV. radio. stereo. phone. other) 4. Other interfering circumstances? (visitors) 5. Which interview took place first. with the parent or the child? 6. In case the interview was abandoned. why? 7. Other comments: 149 Appendix G 150 Post Interview Observations Parent Interview Situation 8. Who was interviewed. father or mother (circle one)? ................ 9. Was the other spouse present? During the entire interview? 10. How cooperative was the interviewee? [on a scale from 1 (low) to 5] 11. In case others were present. did they comment. contribute. distract? Emotional Involvement of Interviewee 12. imitation of other people’s voices ................................. 13. change in voice volume ............................................. 14. change in voice tone ............................................... 15. body movement ...................................................... 16. any signs of re-experiencing of feelings linked to situations being described ......................................... 17. other Emotional Involvement of Interviewee’s Spouse (in case present) 18. imitation of other people’s voices ................................. 19. change in voice volume ............................................. 20. change in voice tone ............................................... 21. body movement ..... ...... .. ............................... . ......... 22. any signs of re-experiencing of feelings linked to situations being described .. ................... . ................... 23. other Appendix G 151 Post Interview Observations Child Interview Situation 24. 25. 26. Emotional 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Who else was present? During what part of the interview? Did the child cooperate? [on a scale from 1 (low) to 5] ........... Did the child understand the questions? [on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high)] .............................. Involvement of the Child Physical complaints (subject has a headache. stomachache. has to go to the bathroom) ......................................... Expression of fear or worry (use of such words as afraid. scared. worried) ........................................................... Crying: visible tears .............................................. Trembling voice .................................................... Whisper (subject speaks without vocal cords) ......... ' .............. Silence to a particular question ................................... Nail biting during the interview ................................... Gratuitous hand movements to body (ear. hair. etc.) ................ Gratuitous hand movements to an object separate from the body. or piece of clothing ............................................... Rigid posture ...................................................... distractions ....................................................... 152 APPENDIX H Sample Page of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children (Harter & Pike. 1981a) A< “..-—..-- . ..a.. This girl isn't veiy good at numbers Anyon- Not wogood a1 numbers OR (-3 811 I.) 3..: '1'.) 51(2) 31.: ITEM1 Thhg‘iriisprettygoodetnumbers AR\OUL Son oi good hem good OR Really good at numbers 1 I I 1 . ‘ l I...) _l C: OlUIbQM-e mahin-e H01 H05 H13 H17 H21 H01 H05 H09 H13 H17 H21 APPENDIX I Reliability Analyses: PSPCAYC Cognitive Competence NUMBERS KNOW THINGS IN US SCHOOL READING SKILLS IN ENGLISH WRITING SKILLS IN ENGLISH SPELLING SKILLS IN ENGLISH ADDING SKILLS CORRELATION MATRIX H01 H05 H09 H13 H17 H21 N OF CASES ' STATISTICS FOR SCALE ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS H21 ITEM MEANS MEANS STD DEV CASES 3.378 .806 45.0 3.289 .787 45.0 3.178 .960 45.0 3.289 .944 45.0 3.200 .944 45.0 3.644 .570 45.0 H01 H05 H09 H13 H17 H21 1.00000 .28989 1.00000 .14618 .17110 1.00000 .54014 .64971 .31797 1.00000 .61547 .56304 .43628 .82606 1.00000 .29889 .28473 .03504 .44822 .34621 1.00000 45.0 MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES 19.978 12.977 3.6 6 MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.330 3.2 3.6 .5 1.1 .029 SCALE SCALE CORRECTED MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 16.600 9.700 .523 .415 .780 16.689 9.674 .548 .439 .775 16.800 10.164 .309 .234 .835 16.689 7.765 .821 .756 .702 16.778 7.677 .843 .763 .695 16.333 11.227 .373 .219 .808 A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED awn-e ALPHA I H03 H11 H15 .80246 SWINGING BY ONESELF RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA ' CLIMBING BOUNCING BALL SKIPPING 6 ITEMS Physical Competence .79861 154 Appendix I Reliability Analyses: PSPCAYC 5. H19 RUN FAST 6. H23 JUMPING ROPE MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. H03 3 773 .560 45.0 2. H07 3.733 .495 45.0 3. H11 3.511 .661 45.0 4. H15 3.667 .640 45.0 5. H19 3.311 .763 45.0 6. H23 3.333 .707 45.0 CORRELATION MATRIX H03 H07 H11 H15 H19 H03 1.00000 H07 .60117 1.00000 H11 .25247 .14793 1.00000 H15 .29633 .14344 .35320 1.00000 H19 .43151 .23442 .12304 .17066 1.00000 H23 -.03329 .06437 .30730 .05025 .05613 1 N OF CASES - 45.0 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLE SCALE 21.333 5.000 2.2 6 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX 3.556 3.3 3.3 .5 1.1 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SOUAREO IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION H03 17.556 3.616 .503 .490 H07 17.600 3.973 .396 .372 H11 17.322 3.559 .402 .242 H15 17.667 3.773 .329 .173 H19 13.022 3.477 .330 .194 H23 13.000 4.091 .143 .123 H23 .00000 S VARIANCE .041 ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED .493 .544 .530 .561 .565 .643 A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED Gubwn-e mUlwa-e ALPHA . H02 H10 H14 H18 H22 H02 H10 H14 H18 H22 .6029 1 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 6 ITEMS .62446 Peer Acceptance FRIENDS TO PLAY OTHERS SHARE TOYS WITH YOU FRIENDS TO PLAY GAMES FRIENDS 0N PLAYGROUND GETS ASKED TO PLAY BY OTHERS OTHERS WANT TO SIT NEXT TO CHILD MEANS (0100wa .373 .422 .511 .444 .044 .044 STD D EV .834 .657 .661 .785 .903 .952 CASES 45. 45. 45. 45. 45. 45. Ohu ' 501a Data Om addulu OVU’VM'VO OO'QD'OS 'N’ngfl ONOC-v- 0-.- E ' @OIQ MAO ZwI) oZahmuo @NNIDM i i i NOOQ’ON'G 0.".- i. mOIa um mzwhn VOIQ IA..- OW'NFNNQONOMNONQ ' De- 8.! IMO gs. OOOO.w v—Ia § CONDO “N”? i I PnOO"Ni~InInI' onev—nvmuw Ofl'lnhln OG'VNO .3. 72° >¢< Op amh — n m w n p v v— n n v p n m 0230 v v D m o no ctho co ”.Iu «a mOIa v0 p—Ia 0o FOIQ mo 001a no vaa va 001a ha VOIA no 0.1a on mOIa mm N.Ia mo 001a mu «CIA so pOIa .02 w8(2 uam<~¢<> wflmommmmm $5.30 IDQN'IDN'N'VN 'QN’S’QNI‘Q I 8 Q N g'QFQNVFQN'ON 100 i wOIa no v.11 0m fluid mm «pie no vaa 0m n¢1a mm aura vm «pin on O—Ia um GOIA cm ooze Om 501a mo OOIA on mOIa no VOIA DD 001a no «Ola so «Ola m2°~h<4wumoo wOthwazoo mLZwQOJnIU no mzcnhawumwa RMHZwm4(2< uwbmwau wum¢~u<> 11 x—DZwaa4 0000000 550 "OFI'IDI‘NU O'flNOVVO I'M 335998oo 0000 050 M'OMQOOI‘Q QNUANOOVOM IDOI'NV'NI'O IDO'NOOI'I'N S - 050 Q50 v..5 00.. 50.0 05.0 05.0 00.? 0—.0 0N.N 0—.0 00.0 ...0 00.5 00.0 00.0 N0.5 N5.v 5v.0 95.5 Guzman 005 >5—¢<4~!~0 00 0000.. 00NN. 0000.— v00 000 v00N. 0000. 0009.1 0000.1 01N0. v00—.1 0N00.1 000N.1 0.5.. 000N.1 N0—0. 0000. 0.?..1 '50.. .Nv0.1 0.Nv. N00w.1 0vv0. 00—..1 000v. 5v0p. 0000.1 0000.. 500..1 0000.. 050 N50 WNIDIDCD'CDVNIDFOVVlnwlDDN 0' p .0 ‘00 N 0’ 00 000 v 0 0N N00 N 0. 0N 050 N 0 0N p00 0 0. 0. 000 0 N NN 050 N 0 0N 050 0 0 0’ N50 N N 0' .50 w. 0' 0. 000 5 . 0N 050 N 0. CN 550 0 p ON 050 N 5 5. 050 0 . 5N Q50 N . 5N 000 0. 0. vp 500 :40 2013 0050340 2n cwhmaao no .02 0812 002<5M~0 0805" no 000832 >¢<02300 00150 040 mmmuoozaom 0050340 00'0.1 0000. 05Np.1 000’. 5500.1 .0 v00 NNON. VNN—. 000N. 000N.1 —000. 00 000 0000.. v0.0. NON0. N00N.1 0000. 0N N00 0000.. p50N.1 O‘N0.1 05N.. 0N «00 0000.. V55N. 550p.1 5N 000 0000.. 050v.1 0N 050 0000.. 0N 050 N00 .00 000 050 050 005..1 00—p.i N00.. 000.. v00N.1 '0 '00 0509.1 0500.1 v00..1 000.. 00.0.1 00 000 00N0.1 500.. v0N0. 000N. 000p.1 0N N00 0N0¢. V050.1 005’. v0Np.1 005p. 0N .00 0050.1 00N'. 0000. N00..1 00Np. 5N 000 vav.1 050'. 5.50.1 000N.1 0500. 00 050 900.. 50VN.1 0000. 0vvp.1 V000.1 0N 050 '00—.1 000—.1 10¢..1 00.—. —v00.1 VN 550 50N0. 0.... 05".1 00N0. 050.. 0N 050 p00N. 000.. v5—p.1 0000.1 V000. NN 050 0000.1 vp.0.1 50v0.1 0—00 vv00. .N Q50 0050.1 #000. 90.0. 050N.1 0«N..1 ON 050 0000.1 «000.1 N5v0.1 .NNO. v0pp.1 0. N50 0000.. .5Np.1 00v0.1 5.0N. 00N0. 0? —50 0000.5 00N..1 000—.1 .000. 5— 050 0000.. 000.. N050.1 0— 000 0000.5 050N.1 0' 000 0000.. cw 500 .50 050 000 000 500 020~5<400000 04(00 x0010 0&35430 MLZwQDJHIU n0~0>4<2< awhmDJU 040<~m<> N17 x—OZwaa< P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30 P20 P IX 0'3 VAR ABLE CLUSTER ANALYSIS: PARENTS‘ CULTURE SHOCK SCALE CORRELATIDNS APE I 500-00000503 géassg. §§32"2“ . 00°08 ’08 8“ 1. DO“ NGGFIflOOOO 2:3.sr'973333 own-«188- 8a. 8a.. ' I I FNO'ODO UGFD"N 000 05 F 'NNDF 550N505 0 ouwNv n 50 55 0 NOO'N -N 00 v0N0 F I IIIII II §NNO N00v-v0000 0N FOFflQGFGOFgfiNSDOO 000555N00 00 000 00v000v80N8000000 v5N00¢50000000000 0N000 0005v0050v —000N N90” 00 80vvv0 00000 NN'rrfi 0000' 1. v 0N050—050550v0 00 0 0'500 '0 00N0 0 8 858N6 0NON5va5 0 N O'GO’ONOON NN .' I I I I 50 0 NN w 00 N "' D'NNO 0'050000000550 00000 00000 05088020§ NN808 I 803vv05NN0— 0 N’QONONO 0' I 0N000o-0 58¢5000N0530 323r°sas§ 3-3:3°res;m vN—380ooNNoN00NNN000: 050*?5500500 ‘0 00 .000 05000vv0000 00 0N0 805' 000500 v0500 voom— 0N8 "'Nrno ON—VOerro 000 eeeeeeesal Iaeeeesee v00N0v 0550105050500550 VN00N0 QVHQNQN'Om'nN 10 00'10' 0500-00'0'0'0 8v vwoNo- v-Ovanvvvo— NN 0 'N0'00 ”0 0’00'005000'N0 000000 000 055555555550000 'Nn'mOFOOO'Nfl'mOFOOO'ND NNNNNNNNNEHQOGOOGHM'Q'V aaaaaeeeeeeeaaaaaeeaeee P41 940 P39 P38 P37 P36 P35 934 P33 P32 P31 §O-N380" :fl NWO’DOO Na " “7’0 mNN' §FZflDZZN CD 05' vOQv'0500 *w0050500v50 05 00 0wv ’MOWON'OOOOO flfl'mDFOGO'NO 555555550000 NMVWOFOOO'ND 00000000ev'v Blfiflflkkflflfllfl 83 1.GXD P43 P42 82 .3486 CLUSTER BOUNDARIES VARIABLE r43 FOOMNG FOONON'VDDFéF OFF “000”” 0v0050v050v00 0F“ DISTANCE OR SIMILARITY WHEN CLUSTER FORMED F ITEMS UTER OW'NGNDflflomNHND'Nfl'FNN'GN' N F? N C4 00 H «F-0’DO'ONOO'NHODND'mNm' “N-' o-e-e-Nwflflfie- OTHER BOUNDARY OF CLUSTER 80000005P0050NNw010N0v0— - 00550050500005550500550 00000 DDF'OOFONNEDQGNDVO’ Nfl'fl 0NN0N0 avenue eeeeaaaaaaagaaeaeeeaeaea E ‘ 2 \IOIUIhUM-A 51010150904 Reliability Analyses: PH03 PH12 PH05 PH10 PH04 PH08 PH14 PH03 PH12 PH05 PH10 PH04 PH08 PH14 ReliabiIity Analysis for ScaIe ( CLUSTER 10 ) Paren APPENDIX K ts’ Perception of Children’s Competence CHILD LIKES TO DO SCHDDL WORK CHILD ENJOYS NEW ACTIVITIES CHILD’S FRIENDS MOSTLY FOREIGN CHILD ENJDYS SPORTS CHILD FIGURES PROBLEMS BY SELF CHILD ENJOYS BEING WITH FRIENDS CHILD PREFERS TO PLAY SPORTS CORRELATION MATRIX PH03 PH03 1.00000 PH12 .29786 PH05 .32236 PH10 .29303 PH04 .09719 PH08 .20006 PH14 -.01111 STATISTICS FDR SCALE ITEM MEANS 4 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE STATISTICS MEAN IF ITEM DELETED PH03 25.639 PH12 25.250 PH05 25.806 PH10 25.167 PH04 25.806 PH08 25.056 PH14 25.444 MEANS .056 .444 .889 .528 .889 .639 .250 550050055 PH12 1.00000 .21506 1 .14332 .24022 -.04274 .10447 MEA 29.69 MEAN MIN .242 3.9 SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED 15.837 16.836 12.047 14.657 16.161 16.397 14.540 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA I 1. PH03 2. PH12 3. PH05 .68975 STD DEV CASES 1.068 36.0 .909 36.0 1.430 36.0 1.000 36.0 .887 36.0 .899 36.0 1.204 36.0 PH05 PH10 PH04 PH08 .00000 .60193 1.00000 .26023 .10022 1.00000 .23454 .12272 .41376 1.00000 .31529 .43319 .32089 .32321 N VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES 4 19.704 4.4 7 MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 4.6 .8 1.2 .094 CORRECTED ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED .321 .253 .676 .260 .192 .688 .565 .431 .601 .529 .473 .622 .386 .288 .660 .343 .295 .670 .404 .338 .655 7 ITEMS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA 3 .68546 Reliabil1ty Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 09 ) CHILD LIKES TO DO SCHOOL WORK CHILD ENJDYS NEW ACTIVITIES CHILD’S FRIENDS MOSTLY FOREIGN ' 162 Appendix K 163 Reliability Analyses: Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Competence 4. PH10 CHILD ENJDYS SPORTS MEANS STD DEV CASES 1 PH03 4.056 1.068 36.0 2. PH12 4.444 .909 36.0 3. PHOS 3.889 1.430 36.0 4 PH10 4.528 1.000 36.0 CORRELATION MATRIX PH03 PH12 PHO5 PH10 PH03 1.00000 PH12 .29786 1.00000 PH05 .32236 .21506 1.00000 PH10 .29303 .14332 .60193 1.00000 STATISTICS FDR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 16.917 9.736 3.1 4 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 4.229 3.9 4.5 .6 1.2 .094 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED PH03 12.861 6.409 .405 .173 .594 PH12 12.472 7.513 .280 .105 .665 PH05 13.028 4.428 .542 .394 .496 PH10 12.389 6.130 .527 .373 .519 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 4 ITEMS ALPHA 3 .64737 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .64490 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 05 ) 1. PH04 CHILD FIGURES PROBLEMS BY SELF 2. PH08 CHILD ENJOYS BEING WITH FRIENDS 3. PH14 CHILD PREFERS TO PLAY SPORTS MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. PH04 3.889 .887 36.0 2. PH08 4.639 .899 36.0 3. PH14 4.250 1.204 36.0 CORRELATION MATRIX PHO4 PH08 PH14 PHO4 1.00000 PH08 .41376 1.00000 PH14 .32089 .32321 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 12.778 5.092 2.3 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 4.259 3.9 4.6 .8 1.2 .141 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED Appendix K Reliability Analyses: STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SOUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED PHO4 3.339 2.959 .441 .210 .473 PH03 3.139 2.923 .442 .212 .439 PH14 3.523 2.253 .333 .147 .535 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA - .30271 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .32033 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 11 ) 1. PH03 CHILD RELIES ON OTHERS FOR HELP 2. PHO7 CHILD MAKES FRIENDS WITH DIFFICULTY 3. PH11 CHILD PREFERS PLAYINC ALONE 4. PH09 CHILD PREFERS TO WATCH SPORTS 5. PH13 CHILD’S FRIENDS ARE MOSTLY COMPATRIOTS MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. PH03 3.000 1.312 37.0 2. PH07 1.335 1.273 37.0 3. PH11 1.432 .735 37.0 4. PH09 2.135 1.417 37.0 5. PH13 2.514 1.434 37.0 CORRELATION MATRIx PH03 PHO7 PH11 PH09 PH13 PH03 1.00000 PH07 .04939 1.00000 PH11 .13330 .23931 1.00000 PH09 -.O1493 .04120 .22334 1.00000 PH13 -.12340 .22399 .23334 .23990 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 10.943 11.330 5 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.139 1.4 3.0 1.3 2.1 .331 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SDUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED PH03 7.943 10.219 -.013 .050 .493 PH07 9.031 3.435 .233 .114 .307 PH11 9.514 9.312 414 .173 .252 PH09 3.311 3.102 213 .103 .325 PH13 3.432 7.530 253 .133 .232 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS ALPHA - .39012 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .44145 Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Competence Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER O7 ) 164 Appendix K 165 Reiiability Analyses: Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s Competence 1. PH06 CHILD RELIES ON OTHERS FOR HELP 2. PH07 CHILD MAKES FRIENDS WITH DIFFICULTY 3. PH11 CHILD PREFERS PLAYING ALONE MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. PH06 3.000 1.312 37.0 2. PH07 1.865 1.273 37.0 3. PH11 1.432 .765 37.0 CORRELATION MATRIX PH06 PH07 PH11 PH06 1.00000 PH07 .04989 1.00000 PH11 .13830 .28981 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 6.297 4.937 2.2 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.099 1.4 3.0 1.6 2.1 .655 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED PH06 3.297 2.770 .102 .019 .408 PH07 4.432 2.586 .179 .084 .215 PH11 4.865 3.509 .294 .099 .095 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA I .30657 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .36249 dOlflbQM-fi dOM‘UM-fi C67 C74 C70 C73 C77 C79 C67 080 C74 C70 C73 C77 C79 APPENDIX L 166 Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Children Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 12 ) FEELING TO BE WITHOUT FRIENDS PREFERS NATIVE LANGUAGE DISLIKE GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY FEEL HAPPY AT HOME LIKE TO PLAY ONLY WITH SAME NATIONALITY MISSES FRIENDS FROM HOME WANT TO GO BACK HOME CORRELATION MATRIX C67 C67 1.00000 C80 .06668 C74 .14782 C70 .01676 C73 -.07802 C77 -.10963 C79 .00508 STATISTICS FOR SCALE ITEM MEANS ITEM-TOTAL SCALE STATISTICS MEAN IF ITEM DELETED C67 11.645 C80 11.194 C74 11.226 C70 11.742 C73 10.839 C77 11.484 C79 11.419 1. MEANS .613 .065 .032 .516 .419 .774 .839 JAN-5””... C80 1.00000 .17778 1 .08197 .24927 -.09710 .17893 MEA 13.25 MEAN MI 1.894 1. SCALE VARIANCE IF ITEM DELETED .370 .828 .247 .798 .340 .925 .052 bbbbbblfl RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA I C67 C80 .44832 STD DEv CASES .315 31.0 .329 31.0 .375 31.0 .323 31.0 .372 31.0 .345 31.0 .333 31.0 c74 c7o' C73 C77 .00000 .15125 1.00000 .14329 .41944 1.00000 .01013 -.15052 -.00379 1.00000 .03432 .19990 .33754 .45142 N VARIANCE STD DEv VARIABLES 3 5.793 2.4 7 N MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 5 2.4 .9 1.3 .094 CORRECTED ITEM- SOUAREO ALPHA TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED .017 .053 .437 .203 .123 .411 .213 .079 .403 .222 .232 .405 .359 .303 .333 .042 .312 .504 .430 .332 .233 7 ITEMS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .46 211 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 11 ) FEELING TO BE WITHOUT FRIENDS PREFERS NATIVE LANGUAGE Appendix L Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Chi ldren 3. C74 DISLIKE GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY 4. C70 FEEL HAPPY AT HOME 5. C73 LIKE TO PLAY ONLY WITH SAME NATIONALITY MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. 067 1.613 .615 31.0 2. 080 2.065 .629 31.0 3. C74 2.032 .875 31.0 4. C70 1.516 .626 31.0 5. C73 2.419 .672 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX 067 C80 C74 C70 C73 C67 1.00000 C80 .06668 1.00000 C74 .14782 .17778 1.00000 C70 .01676 .08197 .15125 1.00000 C73 -.07802 .24927 .14629 .41944 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 9.645 3.703 1.9 5 ITEM MEANS 1.929 1.5 2.4 9 1.6 .135 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED C67 8.032 3.166 .073 .038 .489 C80 7.581 2.785 .249 .088 .382 C74 7.613 2.245 .264 .073 .373 C70 8.129 2.716 .289 .187 .356 C73 7.226 2.581 .311 .236 .336 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS ALPHA I .44570 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .44443 MEAN MIN MAX RAN Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER O2 ) 1. C67 FEELING TO BE WITHOUT FRIENDS 2. C80 PREFERS NATIVE LANGUAGE 3. C74 DISLIKE GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. C67 1.613 .615 31.0 2. 080 2.065 .629 31.0 3. C74 2.032 .875 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX C67 080 C74 C67 1.00000 C80 .06668 1.00000 C74 .14782 .17778 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV GE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 'VARIABLES 167 Appendix L Reliability Analyses: SCALE 5.710 1.943 1.4 3 ITEM 'MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 1.903 1.3 2.1 .5 1.3 .033 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED C37 4.097 1.357 .147 .024 .233 C80 3.345 1.303 .172 .033 .244 C74 3.377 .323 .223 .050 .125 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA - .31323 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .31093 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 13 ) 1. 033 ENOOY GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY 2. C71 THINK TD MISS US FRIENDS 3. C72 LIKE TO SPEAK ENGLISH 4. C73 HAPPY SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 5. C75 HAPPY IN SCHOOL MEANS STD DEv CASES 1. C33 2.339 .333 33.0 2. C71 1.750 .732 33.0 3. C72 1.331 .543 33.0 4. C73 1.339 .494 33.0 5. C75 1.250 .439 33.0 CORRELATION MATRIx C33 C71 C72 C73 C75 C33 1.00000 C71 .19335 1.00000 C72 .07231 .01793 1.00000 C73 .04333 .03943 .33307 1.00000 C75 -.04730 .20000 .53952 .59213 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 3.139 3.037 1.7 5 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 1.323 1.3 2.4 1.1 1.9 .213 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED C33 5.750 2.307 .123 .072 .301 C71 3.339 2.130 .174 .103 .579 C72 3.773 2.033 .433 .470 .399 C73 3.750 2.133 .455 .433 .399 C75 3.339 2.213 .431 .432 .402 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS Culture Shock in Children 168 Appendix L Reliability Analyses: ALPHA I .53371 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .60200 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 07 ) 1. C72 LIKE TO SPEAK ENGLISH 2. C76 HAPPY SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 3. C75 HAPPY IN SCHOOL MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. C72 1.361 .543 36.0 2. C76 1.389 .494 36.0 3. C75 1.250 .439 36.0 CORRELATION MATRIX C72 C76 C75 C72 1.00000 C76 .63307 1.00000 C75 .56952 .59216 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 4.000 1.600 1.3 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 1.333 1.3 1.4 .1 1.1 .005 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED C72 2.639 .694 .676 .459 .741 C76 2.611 .759 .693 .480 .715 075 2.750 .879 .642 .414 .773 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA I .81399 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .81709 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 15 ) 1. 669 DISLIKE SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 2. 081 FEELS LONELY AT HOME 3. C78 LIKE TO PLAY ONLY WITH US CHILDREN 4. 082 MISSES FOOD FROM HOME 5. 683 FEELS THAT HAS LOTS OF FRIENDS 6. 084 FEELS LONELY AT SCHOOL MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. 069 2.600 .553 35.0 2. 081 2.686 .471 35.0 3. C78 2.200 .632 35.0 4. CB2 2.314 .718 35.0 5. 083 2.686 .530 35.0 6. 084 2.743 .505 35.0 CORRELATION MATRIX Culture Shock in Children 169 Appendix L Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Children 039 031 C78 CB2 033 034 C39 1.00000 031 .03774 1.00000 073 -.01332 .11343 1.00000 032 .02931 .03974 .37550 1.00000 033 -.04015 .13135 .01753 .13991 1.00000 034 .14730 .02113 -.01340 -.01339 .23351 1.00000 STATISTICS FDR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 15.229 2.337 1.7 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.533 2.2 2.7 .5 1.2 .051 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 039 12.329 2.473 .031 .033 .405 031 12.543 2.432 .159 .053 .343 C78 13.029 2.037 .219 .159 .304 032 12.914 1.345 .270 .132 .253 033 12.543 2.255 .221 .133 .303 034 12.433 2.434 .123 .037 .334 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA - .37713 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA . .37015 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 14 1. 039 DISLIKES SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 2. 031 FEELS LONELY AT HOME 3. C73 LIKES TO PLAY ONLY VITH US CHILDREN 4. 032 MISSES FOOD FROM HOME MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. 039 2.300 .553 35.0 2. 031 2.333 .471 35.0 3. 073 2.200 .332 35.0 4. 032 2.314 .713 35.0 CORRELATION MATRIX 039 031 C78 032 039 1.00000 031 .03774 1.00000 C78 -.01332 .11343 1.00000 032 .02931 .03974 .37550 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 9.300 1.929 1.4 4 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.450 2.2 2.7 .5 1.2 .053 ITEM-TOTAL' SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA 170 Appendix L Reliability Analyses: IF ITEM DELETED C69 7.200 C81 7.114 C78 7.600 C82 7.486 Culture Shock in Children IF ITEM 1 1 1 1 TOTAL DELETED CORRELATION .576 .034 .575 .112 .129 .298 .022 .270 4 ITEMS RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA I .33566 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I MULTIPLE IF ITEM CORRELATION DELETED .007 .417 .019 .336 .153 .114 .142 .138 .31329 171 Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 16 ) mamas-010.. ‘O (A) Q AT HOME APPENDIX M FEEL TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS FEEL HAPPY FEEL ANXIETY WHILE ATTENDING CLASS LIKES SPEAKING ENGLISH LIKE BEING SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH ENJOY SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE P23 CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN’S LANGUAGE P37 THINKS WILL MISS us FOOD MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P20 1.935 1.209 31.0 2. P23 1.434 .311 31.0 3. P40 3.345 1.170 31.0 4. P33 1.303 .910 31.0 5. P33 1 339 1.157 31.0 3. P25 1.339 1.033 31.0 7. P23 2.710 1.733 31.0 3. P37 3.933 1.197 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P20 P23 P40 P33 P33 P25 P20 1.00000 P23 .03233 .00000 P40 .19524 .39731 1.00000 P33 .23091 .23353 .27735 1.00000 P33 .15902 .22739 .15313 .33535 1.00000 P25 -.13903 -.O3034 .03270 -.03752 -.04373 1.00000 P23 .13370 -.13093 .34133 ..00545 -.13999 .24370 P37 -.07053 -.25303 .01535 -.12333 .09237 .07403 P26 P37 .P26 1.00000 P37 -.00433 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEv VARIABLES SCALE 19.223 17.131 4.1 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAx VARIANCE 2.403 1.5 4.0 2.5 2.7 .377 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P20 17.290 14.213 .135 .143 ' .334 P23 17.742 15.993 .031 .330 .395 P40 15.531 11.935 .472 .392 .203 P33 17.419 13.735 .330 .529 .235 P33 17.337 13.773 .240 .513 .323 P25 17.337 15.712 .039 .113 .413 P23 13.513 12.591 .123 .339 .404 P37 15.253 13.235 -.053 .173 .433 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA - .39497 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .42593 172 Appe Reliability Analyses: ndix M Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 15 ) Culture Shock in Parents 1. P20 FEEL TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS 2. P28 FEEL HAPPY AT HOME 3. P40 FEEL ANXIETY WHILE ATTENDING CLASS 4. P33 LIKES SPEAKING ENGLISH 5. P38 LIKE BEING SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P20 1.935 1.209 31.0 2. P28 1.484 .811 31.0 3. P40 3.645 1.170 31.0 4. P33 1.806 .910 31.0 5. P38 1.839 1.157 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P20 P28 P40 P33 P38 P20 1.00000 P28 .03288 1.00000 P40 .19524 .39751 1.00000 P33 .26091 .26658 .27765 1.00000 P38 .15902 .22789 .15318 .66565 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 10.710 111.280 3.4 5 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.142 1.5 3.6 2.2 2.5 .735 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P20 8.774 8.181 .237 .092 .649 P28 9.226 8.981 .337 .198 .591 P40 7.065 7.596 .359 .214 .581 P33 8.903 7.490 .595 .495 .474 P38 8.871 7.249 .432 .449 .539 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS ALPHA I .62297 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .64161 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 02 1. P20 FEEL TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS 2. P28 FEEL HAPPY AT HOME 3. P40 FEEL ANXIETY WHILE ATTENDING CLASS MEANS STD DEV ‘ CASES 1. P20 1.935 1.209 31.0 2. P28 1.484 .811 31.0 3. P40 3.645 1.170 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX 173 Appendix M Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents P20 P28 P40 P20 1.00000 P28 .03288 1.00000 P40 .19524 .39751 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR SCALE MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES 7.065 4.862 2.2 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAx VARIANCE . 2.355 1.5 3.3 2.2 2.5 1.300 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P20 5.129 ' 2.733 .153 .040 .543 P23 5.531 3.335 .274 .130 .327 P40 3.419 2.135 .373 .191 .059 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA . .42323 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA - .44149 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 05 ) 1. P25 ENOOY SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE 2. P23 CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN’S LANGUAGE 3. P37 THINKS WILL MISS US FOOD MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P25 1.339 1 033 31.0 2. P23 2.710 1.733 31.0 3. P37 3.933 . 1.197 31.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P25 P26 P37 P25 1.00000 P23 .24370 1.00000 P37 .07403 -.00433 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 3.513 3.353 2.3 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAx VARIANCE 2.339 1.3 4.0 2.1 2.2 1.143 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P25 3.377 4.423 .243 .035 -.009 P23 5.303 2.731 .153 .030 .137 P37 4.543 5.053 .032 .003 .357 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS 174 Appendix M Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents 175 ALPHA I .24176 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .25903 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 17 ) 1. P21 ENJOY GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY 2. P30 UNABLE TO RELAX WITH MICHIGAN-US PEOPLE 3. P23 DISLIKE BEING SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 4. P27 WANT MORE MICHGIAN-US FRIENDS 5. P29 MISS NATIVE FOOD MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P21 3.194 1.546 36.0 2. P30 3.500 1.404 36.0 3. P23 4.278 1.111 36.0 4. P27 2.500 1.298 36.0 5. P29 3.722 1.504 36.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P21 P30 P23 P27 P29 P21 1.00000 P30 .20403 1.00000 P23 .15061 -.01831 1.00000 P27 “.04982 .04702 .19803 1.00000 P29 .02389 .33814 .37217 .49731 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 17.194 16.161 4.0 5 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.439 2.5 4.3 1.8 1.7 .432 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P21 14.000 12.457 .120 .081 .567 P30 13.694 11.761 .252 .203 .475 P23 12.917 12.650 .288 .193 .457 P27 14.694 11.990 .276 .265 .459 P29 13.472 9.171 .519 .434 .275 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS ALPHA I .51171 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .51696 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 08 ) 1. P23 DISLIKE BEING SPOKEN TO IN ENGLISH 2. P27 WANT MORE MICHGIAN-US FRIENDS 3. P29 MISS NATIVE FOOD MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P23 4.273 1.111 33.0 2. P27 2.500 1.298 36.0 3. P29 3.722 1.504 36.0 ' Appendix M 176 Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents CORRELATION MATRIX P23 P27 P29 P23 1.00000 P27 .19803 1.00000 P29 .37217 .49731 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 10.500 8.943 3.0 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.500 2.5 4.3 1.8 1.7 .827 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P23 6.222 5.892 .337 .139 .659 P27 8.000 4.743 .445 .248 .525 P29 6.778 3.492 .567 .325 .327 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA I .63046 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .62366 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 18 ) 1. P22 MISS FAMILY 8 FRIENDS AT HOME 2. P32 DISLIKE GOING OUT WITHOUT FAMILY 3. P31 BEING PROUD ABOUT CHILDREN’S ENGLISH 4. P35 WANT TO GO BACK HOME MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P22 2.314 1.207 35.0 2. P32 3.486 1.579 35.0 3. P31 1.629 1.060 35.0 4. P35 2.143 1.396 35.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P22 P32 P31 P35 P22 1.00000 P32 .30337 1.00000 P31 .30091 .18135 1.00000 P35 .37393 .16773 .51405 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 9.571 13.076 3.6 4 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 2.393 1.6 3.5 1.9 2.1 .616 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P22 7.257 8.432 .455 .209 .510 P32 6.086 8.081 .279 .101 .659 Appendix M Reliability Analyses: P31 P35 7.943 7.429 Culture Shock in Parents 9. 7. 055 605 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA I .61731 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I 4 ITEMS .454 .457 .283 .317 .63 177 .523 .500 913 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 20 ) P24 P39 P42 P43 P34 P33 P41 510101-5010-5 \ldl‘flwa-s CORRELATION MATRIX P24 P24 1.00000 P39 .37433 P42 .16737 P43 .46290 P34 .24510 P36 .19148 P41 °.00554 STATISTICS FOR SCALE ITEM MEANS ITEM-TOTAL SCALE STATISTICS MEAN IF ITEM DELETED P24 20.227 P39 19.455 P42 19.364 P43 20.591 P34 19.500 P36 20.773 P41 20.273 FEEL CONFINED IN UNABLE TO RELAX WITH COMPATRIOTS EMBARRASED TO ASK CHILDREN’S HELP CONCERN FOR CHILD’S READAPTATION FEEL LACK OF FRIENDS NEED CHILD’S HELP IN SOCIAL SITUATION UNCOMFDRTABLE SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ALPHA I .77654 APARTMENT MEANS STD DEV CASES 3.136 1.521 22.0 3.909 1.444 22.0 4.000 1.309 22.0 2.773 1.602 22.0 3.864 1.457 22.0 2.591 1.182 22.0 3.091 1.540 22.0 P39 P42 P43 P34 P36 1.00000 .35249 1.00000 .42290 .34064 1.00000 .53678 .27455 .49620 1.00000 .33987 .27703 .30083 .65749 1.00000 .32494 .33058 .02808 .55743 .41390 MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES 23.364 43.576 6.6 7 MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.338 2.6 4.0 1.4 1.5 .337 SCALE CORRECTED VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 34.946 .351 .267 .779 31.688 .603 .393 .727 35.195 .429 .271 .762 31.777 .511 .493 .747 29.976 .719 .690 .702 34.565 .548 .450 .743 34.303 .382 .466 .773 7 ITEMS STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .78106 Appendi X M Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 19 ) 1. P24 FEEL CONFINED IN APARTMENT 2. P39 UNABLE TO RELAX WITH COMPATRIOTS 3. P42 EMBARRASED TO ASK CHILDREN’S HELP 4. P43 CONCERN FOR CHILD'S READAPTATION MEANS STD DEV CASES 1. P24 3.136 1.521 22.0 2. P39 3.909 1.444 22.0 3. P42 4.000 1.309 22.0 4. P43 2.773 1.602 22.0 CORRELATION MATRIX P24 P39 P42 P43 P24 1.00000 P39 .37433 1.00000 P42 .16737 .35249 1.00000 P43 .46290 .42290 .34064 1.00000 STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 13.818 17.965 4.2 4 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.455 2.8 4.0 1.2 1.4 .357 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P24 10.682 11.084 .451 .255 .639 P39 9.909 10.944 .516 .268 .596 P42 9.818 12.823 .366 .171 .685 P43 . 11.045 9.760 .564 .323 .560 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 4 ITEMS ALPHA I .68916 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA I .68618 1. P34 2. P36 3. P41 1. P34 2. P36 3. P41 Reliability Analysis for Scale ( CLUSTER 14 ) FEEL LACK OF FRIENDS NEED CHILD'S HELP IN SOCIAL SITUATION UNCOMFDRTABLE SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE CORRELATION MATRIX P34 P34 1.00000 P33 .35749 P41 .55743 MEANS STD DEV CASES 3.864 1.457 22.0 2.591 1.182 22.0 3.091 1.540 22.0 P36 P41 1.00000 .41390 1.00000 178 Appendix M Reliability Analyses: Culture Shock in Parents STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES SCALE 9.545 12.165 3.5 3 ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE 3.182 2.6 3.9 1.3 1.5 .411 ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED P34 5.682 5.275 .712 .531 .571 P36 6.955 6.998 .603 .436 .715 P41 6.455 5.784 .541 .315 .783 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 3 ITEMS ALPHA 3 .77349 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA 3 .78088 179 "7111M i’i'iflflilfli'i @117 T