v

"v ”n

. 13“"

-"v'r"‘lr

I}. V ~ 5
‘ .1. a n. ‘
fl} 1:: .5.

9. .wu....r.3

 

 

an. 4%.»,
Aﬁkﬁ

 

 

. ~ . .Zla
.z: !1 ..
. t;

 

. 5 ,
f. ‘1...
, I! .

 

1 l
:31 5.37:,
n 4a; . . . :1 ‘

‘ V .m. ‘ ‘ ;?;ur.

HA‘

 

3 IvIICIImAIé'm ES
.1 00 STATE UNIVERSITY
6 EAST LANSING, MICI-I 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL CHINESE ACCULTURATION
MEASURE (MCAM): A VALIDATION STUDY

presented by

PEI-CHEN HSU

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in CounseliLquychology

 

 

Major ProfeI’s’sor’s Signature

A/OH’M/JVQW 2C? 1 1071*

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 a/ct mm Tums

THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL CHINESE ACCULTURATION MEASURE (MCAM):
A VALIDATION STUDY

By

Pei-Chen Hsu

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2005

ABSTRACT

THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL CHINESE ACCULTURATION MEASURE (MCAM):
A VALIDATION STUDY

By

Pei-Chen Hsu

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Multidimensional
Chinese Acculturation Measure (MCAM). Since the unidimensional measure of
acculturation is not appropriate for the contemporary population of Chinese descent, the
MCAM employs the bidimensional multi-domain model of acculturation and includes
two subscales: Involvement in the American Culture subscale (MCAM-A) and
Involvement in the Chinese Culture subscale (MCAM-C). Each subscale includes six
domains (i.e., language, food, leisure activity, cultural participation, ethnic interaction,
and values) that are salient to the construct of acculturation. An initial 56-item MCAM
was pilot tested with a sample of 54 participants. The ﬁnal version of the MCAM
includes 58 items with 29 items in each subscale and was validated following Messick’s
(1995) validation framework in this study. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type
rating scale.

Five hundred and eighty ﬁve Chinese or Chinese-Americans completed the
MCAM and other self-report measures online. The Multidimensional Random
Coefﬁcients Multinomial Logit Model (MRCMLM; Adams, Wilson, & Wang, 1997) was
used to scale the data. Six negative-worded items were excluded from the analyses
because they exhibited misﬁt. Overall, the results provide strong support for the content,

structural, generalizability, and external aspects of validity for the MCAM. The MCAM

is the ﬁrst acculturation measure rigorously validated following an advanced validity
model (Messick, 1995) and item response theory. A few remaining concerns within the
MCAM are discussed and modiﬁcations are proposed. The results indicated that the
bidimensional model was more appropriate than the unidimensional model. However, the
results also suggested that the structure of the acculturation construct appeared to be
different for American-born Chinese versus Native-born Chinese because the two groups
exhibited different patterns in their responses on the MCAM. Hence, different
acculturation measures and models are recommended. Based on the recent trend in the
literature of acculturation (Chung, Kim, & Abreu, 2004; Le Espiritu, 1992; Roosens,
1989), one of the recommendations is to add a Chinese-American Pan-ethnic dimension
for the ABC’s acculturation model. The strengths and limitations of this study are

discussed and directions for future studies are proposed.

Copyright by
PEI-CHEN HSU
2005

Dedicated to my mother, my forever role model, in heaven.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am forever indebted to Dr. Edward Wolfe. His devotion to this project was
beyond what a student could have ever expected from a dissertation chair. Without his
expertise and untiring assistance through hundreds of e—mail exchanges, day and night,
this project would not have been possible. He believed in me much more than I believed
in myself. I am grateful to my advisor, Dr. Gloria Smith, who offered her wisdom, cared
about my life outside of graduate school, and hoped the best for me professionally and
personally. I appreciate Drs. Marsha Carolan and Lynn Paine, my committee members,
for their interests, invaluable feedback, and enduring commitment to this project.

I am extremely thankful to my parents for their unending support for me to pursue
my dream in the United States. Special thanks go to my beloved sister, who understood
the Chinese daughter guilt for being so far away from home and told me to follow my
passion. I thank other family members for encouraging me to become the ﬁrst Dr. Hsu.

Thanks to all my friends who have generously lent their support during difficult
times. Yu-Wen, thanks for your expertise in Chinese immigrant families and being a true
ﬁ'iend. Bets, my editor and ﬁ'iend, thanks for your support and work in perfecting this
project. I also want to acknowledge the participants in this study for their time and help.

Finally, Michael Yang deserves my deepest appreciation. You are my A+
technical consultant, conﬁdant, and life partner. TA, thank you for your unwavering
effort in undertaking the technical demands of this project; for your unlimited love and
patience with my never-ending workload; for assisting and supporting me in whatever
ways one could possibly think of, practically or emotionally; and most importantly, for

postponing your dream of building a family because of my dream. My degree is yours.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 1
Validation Framework .................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework of the Multidimensional Chinese Acculturation Measure
(MCAM) ....................................................................................................................... 9
Unidimensional Versus Bidimensional Models .................................................... 9
Internal Model ..................................................................................................... 12
Developmental Model ......................................................................................... 15
External Model .................................................................................................... 19
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 25
Potential Indicators .............................................................................................. 25
Content Sampling and Substantive Sampling ..................................................... 26
Instrument Development ............................................................................................ 27
Initial Development ............................................................................................. 27
First Revision after Expert Review ..................................................................... 28
Second Revision: A Pilot Study .......................................................................... 29
Summary and Research Questions ............................................................................. 31
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD ........................................................................................ 37
Sample ........................................................................................................................ 37
Procedures ................................................................................................................... 38
Instruments ................................................................................................................. 41
The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA) ................. 41
Psychological Well-Being Measures ................................................................... 43
The Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—Short
Form (ATSPPHS—S) ........................................................................................... 44
Demographics ...................................................................................................... 44
Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 46
Model ................................................................................................................... 46
Dimensionality .................................................................................................... 47
Fit Indices ............................................................................................................ 48
Rating Scales ....................................................................................................... 50
Reliability and Precision ...................................................................................... 50
Differential Item Functioning (DIF) .................................................................... 51
Item Endorsabilities across Acculturation Domains ........................................... 53

vii

External Aspect of Validity ................................................................................. 53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .......................................................................................... 58
Dimensionality ............................................................................................................ 58
Fit ................................................................................................................................ 59
Rating Scales .............................................................................................................. 60
Reliability and Precision ............................................................................................. 62
Differential Item Functioning (DIF) ........................................................................... 63

Gender ................................................................................................................. 63
Country of Birth (COB) ....................................................................................... 64
Item Endorsabilities across Acculturation Domains ................................................... 67
External Aspect of Validity ........................................................................................ 69
The Relationships between the MCAM and Demographic Variables ................ 69
The Relationship between the MCAM and the SL-ASIA ................................... 72
The Relationships between the MCAM and Other Constructs ........................... 73

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 78
Validity of the MCAM Measures ............................................................................... 78
Implications ................................................................................................................ 80

Dimensionality of Acculturation ......................................................................... 80
Differential Dimensionality for NBC and ABC .................................................. 84
Developmental Theory ........................................................................................ 86
Remaining Concerns of the MCAM ........................................................................... 90
Strengths and Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 93
Strengths .............................................................................................................. 93
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 95
Future Directions ........................................................................................................ 9S

FOOTNOTES .................................................................................................................... 97

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A Tables ..................................................................................................... 99
Appendix B Figures .................................................................................................. 144
Appendix C Initial 60 Items of the MCAM and Their Corresponding Processes and
Domains .................................................................................................................... 156
Appendix D A Description of the Pilot Study .......................................................... 159
Appendix E Multidimensional Chinese Acculturation Measure (MCAM) .............. 172
Appendix F The Listservs of the Organizations Targeted for Recruiting Participants
for This Study ........................................................................................................... 177
Appendix G Recruiting E-mail and Internet Advertisement .................................... 181
Appendix H Informed Consent ................................................................................. 182
Appendix I The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA) ...184
Appendix J The 21-item version Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSC-2l) ............... 189
Appendix K The Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—
Short Form (ATSPPHS-S) ........................................................................................ 190
Appendix L Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................. 191

viii

Appendix M Plots of Generational Status, Length of Residence in the US, and Age

of Immigration against the MCAM Logit Scores ..................................................... 194
Appendix N Distribution of the Final 52 Items of the MCAM ................................ 198
Appendix 0 The Result of the Renumbering after the Negatively-worded Items Were
Removed from the MCAM ....................................................................................... 199
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 200

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table A1 Test Blueprint for the MCAM ........................................................................... 99
Table A2 Distribution of the Initial 60 Items of the MCAM ............................................. 99
Table A3 Revisions Made on the Initial 60 Items Based on Experts’ Feedback ............. 100
Table A4 Summary of Revisions Suggested by the Pilot Study ...................................... 101
Table A5 Distribution of the Final 58 Items of the MCAM ............................................ 101
Table A6 Summary of Research Questions, Hypotheses, Analyses, and the Related
Aspect of Validity ................................................................................................ 102
Table A7 Distribution of Place of Birth and Citizenship ................................................. 108
Table A8 Crosstabulation Count of Where Highest Education Received X Where
Majority of Education Received .......................................................................... 108
Table A9 U. S. Region X Current Neighborhood Crosstabulation Count ....................... 109

Table A10 Distribution of Reason for Immigration (N = 344, Missing data = 24) ......... 109

Table A11 Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Raw Scores on the MCAM-C and
MCAM-A Subscales (N = 585) ........................................................................... 110

Table A12 Summary of the Model-Based Evaluation of Dimensionality (N = 585) ...... 110
Table A13 Items Exhibiting Misﬁt in the Bidimensional Model .................................... 111

Table A14 Summary of the Model-Based Evaluation of Dimensionality on the Data with
Negatively-worded Items Removed (N = 585) .................................................... 111

Table A15 Estimations of Item Difﬁculty and Fit Indices for Problematic Items and the
Means of Item Difﬁculty and Fit Indices of All the Items in the MCAM ........... 112

Table A16 Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step
Calibration Disordering in the Ability Rating Scale (1 as not at all and 5 as
extremely) ............................................................................................................ 113

Table A17 Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step
Calibration Disordering in the Frequency Rating Scale (1 as almost never and 5 as
almost always) ..................................................................................................... 114

Table A18 Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step
Calibration Disordering in the Agreement Rating Scale (1 as strongly disagree
and 5 as strongly agree) ....................................................................................... 115

Table A19 A Comparison of ABC’s and NBC’S Response Distributions across Rating
Scale Categories on the Chinese Proﬁciency items ............................................. 116

Table A20 A Comparison of ABC’s and NBC’S Response Distributions across Rating
Scale Categories on the English Proﬁciency items .............................................. 116

Table A21 Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Acculturation Estimates and Reliability
of Separation Indices on the MCAM-A and MCAM-C (N = 585) ..................... 117

Table A22 Descriptive Statistics of the Wald Statistics and the SAI indices for the Gender
Comparisons ........................................................................................................ 117

Table A23 The Wald Statistic and the Absolute Value of SAI for the Items that Exhibited
Statistically Signiﬁcant and Meaningﬁrlly Large Differential Item Functioning for
Native-born Chinese (NBC) and American-born Chinese (ABC) ...................... 118

Table A24 Summary of Principal Component Analyses for Native-born Chinese (NBC)
and American-born Chinese (ABC) on the MCAM Items .................................. 120

Table A25 Domain Endorsability Estimates for Native-Bom Chinese (NBC) and
American-Bom Chinese (ABC) on the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A Subscalele2

Table A26 Intercorrelations among NBC’S Scores on the MCAM-C, MCAM-A, Length
of Residence in the United States (LR), and Age of Immigration (AOI) ............ 122

Table A27 Group Means and Standard Deviations of MCAM Subscale Scores for
Mobility, Geographic Location, Urbanity, and Location of Majority of Education
Received (LE) ...................................................................................................... 123

Table A28 Intercorrelations among Participants’ MCAM Subscale Scores, Age, Gender,
Country of Birth (COB), Education Level (Edu), Location of the Majority of
Education Received (LE), and Income ................................................................ 124

Table A29 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Mobility (MB) as the Between-
Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures ................... 125

Table A30 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Geographic Location (GL) as the
Between-Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures....126

Table A31 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Urbanity (U) as the Between-
Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures ................... 127

xi

Table A32 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Location of Majority of Education
Received (LE) as the Between-Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as
Repeated Measures .............................................................................................. 128

Table A33 Intercorrelations among Participants’ SL—ASIA scores, Age, Gender, Country
of Birth (COB), Education Level (Edu), and Location of Majority of Education
Received (LE) ...................................................................................................... 129

Table A34 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Scores of
the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA) (n = 570)...l30

Table A35 Group Means and Standard Deviations ((SD) of the MCAM Subscale Scores
across Groups Different Ethnic Identity ............................................................. 130

Table A36 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Ethnic Identity (El) as the Between-
Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures ................... 131

Table A37 Group Means and Standard Deviations of the Psychological Well-Being
Measures (Life Satisfaction and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist [HSCD across
Groups That Used Different Acculturation Approaches ..................................... 131

Table A38 Correlations between Participants’ Scores on the Life Satisfaction (LS) Item
and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSC) and their Age, Gender, Country of
Birth (COB), Education Level (Edu), Location of Majority of Education Received
(LE), and Income ................................................................................................. 132

Table A39 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Acculturation Approaches (ACCA)

as the Between-Subject Variable and the Psychological Well-Being (PWB)
Measures as Repeated Measures .......................................................................... 133

Table A40 Correlations between Participants’ Scores on the Attitudes toward Seeking
Professional Psychological Help Scale (ATSPPHS) and Age, Gender, Country of
Birth (COB), Education Level (Edu), and Location of Majority of Education
Received (LE) ...................................................................................................... 134

Table A41 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Scores
of the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale

(ATSPPHS) (n = 563) .......................................................................................... 135
Table A42 Summary of Research Questions, Hypotheses, Results, and the Related Aspect
of Validity Supported ........................................................................................... 136
Table A43 Problematic Items and Proposed Actions ...................................................... 142

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B1. The unidimensional model of acculturation. ................................................. 144
Figure BZ. The bidimensional model of acculturation. ................................................... 144
Figure B3. Multi-domain model of acculturation. ........................................................... 145
Figure B4. Internal model of the MCAM. ....................................................................... 146
Figure B5. A comparison of Marin’s (1992) model and the developmental model of the
MCAM. ................................................................................................................ 147
Figure B6. The external model of the MCAM. ............................................................... 148

Figure B7. The 68% conﬁdence bands for each score estimate for the MCAM-C
subscale. ............................................................................................................... 149

Figure B8. The 68% conﬁdence bands for each score estimate for the MCAM-A
subscale. ............................................................................................................... 149

Figure B9. NBC’S item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the
MCAM-C subscale. ............................................................................................. 150

Figure 310. NBC’S item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the
MCAM-A subscale. ............................................................................................. 150

Figure B11. ABC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the
MCAM-C subscale. ............................................................................................. 151

Figure B12. ABC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the
MCAM-A subscale. ............................................................................................. 151

Figure B13. Group means on the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the three
mobility groups. ................................................................................................... 152

Figure B14. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the ﬁve
groups that lived in different regions of the US .................................................. 152

Figure BIS. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the three
neighborhood types. ............................................................................................. 153

Figure B16. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the two
groups that received the majority of their education at different locations. ........ 153

Figure 317. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across groups of
different ethnic identity. ....................................................................................... 154

xiii

Figure 318. Group means of the psychological well-being (PWB) measures across
groups using different acculturation approaches. ................................................ 154

Figure B19. A reﬁned developmental model of the MCAM. .......................................... 155

xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement

The concept of “acculturation” originated within the ﬁeld of anthropology and
was deﬁned as the potentially mutual inﬂuence that two cultures have on each other when
they come into contact (Redﬁeld, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, as cited in Gushue &
Sciarra, 1995). In contemporary studies of acculturation, however, it has commonly been
referred to as the interaction between a dominant and a nondominant culture in which one
is affected much more profoundly than the other. As the diversity of the population in the
United States increases, research concerning acculturation has increased. Studies
investigating acculturation processes oﬁen assume that individuals develop a new identity
in which the culture of origin is gradually relinquished while the new culture takes its
place (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). These studies. portray acculturation as a
unidimensional construct (see Figure 1) and posit that one’s level of acculturation can be
depicted by one’s position on a single Continuum.

However, more recent conceptualizations maintain acculturation as being both
multidimensional and situationally speciﬁc (Gushue & Sciarra, 1995; Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Rosenthal &
Feldman, 1990; Ryder et al., 2000; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002). Current theory suggests
that the culture of origin and the new culture are independent of one another and exist on
two different dimensions (referred to as “bidimensional model” hereaﬁer, displayed in
Figure 2, Berry & Sam, 1996). One may internalize elements in both cultures
simultaneously even if the elements are inconsistent or in conﬂict with one another

(Hong et al., 2000). As Ryder et al. found, adoption of the new culture does not

necessitate rejection of the culture of origin. Based on this view, an individual can be
highly acculturated to a new culture while maintaining identity and comfort with his or
her culture of origin. Additionally, an individual can be highly acculturated in one
domain of his or her life (e.g., language use) but not acculturated in other domains (e.g.,
food preference) (referred to as multi-domain model hereaﬁer, displayed in Figure 3).
Hence, modern views suggest that the construct called acculturation should be measured
multidimensionally.

Acculturation is related to other commonly studied psychological and educational
constructs. For example, some studies have shown that a balance of acculturation to the
new culture (or the dominant culture) and maintenance of culture of origin promotes
psychological health (Eyou, Adair, & Dixon, 2000; Lieber, Chin, Nihira, & Mink, 2001;
Sam, 2000), although others have suggested otherwise (Florsheim, 1997; Miranda &
Matheny, 2000). Within a Chinese-Canadian sample, Wong (1999) found that youth
delinquency was positively related to acculturation to Western culture yet, at same time,
positively related to their association with Chinese peers when the inﬂuence of delinquent
peers was taken into account. This suggests that while Chinese youths who adapt to a
Western culture are at higher risk for delinquency, those who attempt to maintain ties
with Chinese friends may be exposed to similar risks. Gil and Vega (1996) found that
higher acculturation of adolescents is associated with higher frequencies of parent-child
conﬂict. Similarly, Heras and Revilla (1994) found that mothers of less acculturated
college students reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of family satisfaction than did
parents of more acculturated students. Furthermore, positive relationships were found

between acculturation and second language acquisition (Young & Gardner, 1990),

vocational self-realization (Leong & Tata, 1990), and willingness to seek counseling
(Gim, Atkinson, & Whiteley, 1990). Likewise, several studies have found that
acculturation is negatively related to acculturative stress (Hans, 2002; C. Kim, 1999).
These results suggest that acculturation may serve as an invaluable index in predicting
crucial factors of general well being.

According to the 2000 United States Census (United States Census Bureau
[USCB], 2000), 10% of the US. population is foreign-bom (i.e., approximately 28
million) and about 7.2 million (26%) of that population is born in Asia. The number of
people with Asian descent (both foreign-bom or American-bom) accounts for
approximately 12% of the ethnic minorities and 4.2% of the entire US population
(U SCB, 2002). Considering the Size of the Asian population, it is important to understand
how their acculturation impacts their general well being..More importantly, acculturation
has been viewed as an important variable in determining the appropriateness of
psychotherapy approaches for Asians (Gaw, 1982; Sue & Sue, 1987). Gaw (1982)
asserted that acculturation affects clients’ manifestation of the symptoms, their capability
to understand the origins of symptoms, their reception to a speciﬁc type of intervention,
and their family’s reaction to psychotherapy. Therefore, an acculturation measure
designed for an Asian population is necessary.

The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale ([SL-ASIA], Suinn,
Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987) has been the dominant measure in Asian
acculturation literature Since 1987. However, there are two serious limitations of the SL-
ASIA. One of the limitations is that the SL-ASIA measures one’s acculturation level as a

unidimensional construct (Ryder et al., 2000) despite most modern depictions of

acculturation implying that it is a bidimensional construct. Hence, despite the fact that
modern theory favors a multidimensional model of acculturation, many studies
investigating Asian acculturation experiences measured acculturation unidimensionally
(e.g., Davis & Katzman, 1999; Gim et al., 1990, Tata & Leong, 1994). Although R. M.
Suinn (personal communication, February 7, 2002) added ﬁve supplementary
bidimensional items to the original 21-item SL-ASIA, no validity or reliability
information is available on these added items. Several investigators have attempted to
construct bidimensional measures of acculturation for Asian groups (e.g., Chung, Kim,
Abreu, 2004; Flannery, 1996; Lee, Chou, Kim, & Ngo, 2000; Ryder et al., 2000).
However, most of these measures were developed for the entire Asian population, which
can be problematic because Asians from different countries have very distinct cultures. In
fact, it is considered offensive to assume that all Asians embrace the same culture
(McGoldrick, Giordan, & Pearce, 1996). Therefore, different acculturation measures
should be developed for Asians from different cultures to capture the idiosyncrasies in
each culture.

Obviously, the absence of a well-constructed, multidimensional measure of
acculturation for Asians impedes the development of knowledge of their acculturation
experiences and pursuit of their welfare. The unidimensional model of acculturation
might not be appropriate for the contemporary population undergoing the acculturation
process. Thus, the validity of research results based upon unidimensional measures of
acculturation is questionable. Moreover, without a uniform measure, the integration and
comparison of results across studies are impossible. Having such a measure would allow

researchers to properly investigate the Asian acculturation process and how it relates to

adjustment, well being, and attitudes toward seeking psychological help. The
development of an adequate instrument and the research and theories that result from
employing that instrument will help psychologists, educators, and other professionals to
better serve their clients or students who are of Asian descent. Furthermore, the measure
will provide a model for generating similar measures for other ethnic/cultural groups as
they undergo the acculturation process.

Taken together, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a
multidimensional acculturation measure for Chinese and Chinese-Americans. AS stated
above, it is problematic to create a measure for all Asian groups. Chinese and Chinese-
Americans are chosen because they are the largest, comprising 24% of the Asian
population, and the fastest growing of the Asian groups in the United States (U SCB,
2002). The results obtained from the measure would provide investigators and the
measure respondents a comprehensive understanding of the respondents’ acculturation
status. Upon further investigation regarding the relationships between acculturation and
other psychological variables, the results obtained from the measure would also help
guide intervention planning for Chinese and Chinese-Americans undergoing
acculturation.

Validation Framework

This study intended to evaluate the validity of the MCAM based on item response
theory and Messick’s (1995) validation framework. Historically, authors of acculturation
measures have been using the three traditional types of validity (i.e., content, criterion,

and construct) to evaluate the quality of their measures. However, according to Messick

(1995), this conception of validity is outdated and incomplete. Messick (1995) stressed
that:
Validity is an overall evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical
evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of
interpretations and actions on the basis of test scores. Validity is not a property of
the test . . . and validation is a continuing process (p. 741).
Messick (1995) described six aspects of construct validity as general validity
criteria for all educational and psychological measurement:
1) The content aspect includes evidence of content relevance, representatives, and
technical quality; 2) the substantive aspect refers to theoretical rationales for the
observed consistencies in test responses; 3) the structural aspect appraises the
ﬁdelity of the scoring structure to the structure of the construct domain at issue; 4)
the generalizability aspect examines the extent to which score properties and
interpretations generalize to and across population groups, settings and tasks; 5)
the external aspect includes convergent and discriminant evidence . . . as well as
evidence of criterion relevance and applied utility; and ﬁnally 6) the
consequential aspect appraises the values implications of score interpretation as a

basis for action as well as the actual and potential consequences of test use (p.

219)

The current study employed four of the aforementioned aspects of construct
validity to establish as well as evaluate the validity of the MCAM, which is beyond what
has typically been done in the acculturation measures. It was hoped that this effort could

help advance acculturation assessments to meet the standards of contemporary instrument

development practices. The speciﬁc methods this study used to establish and evaluate

each of these aspects of the MCAM are explained in the subsequent sections.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior to data collection and data analyses, an extensive literature review
concerning acculturation as well as efforts to measure acculturation was conducted.
Based on the results of the literature review, three models—intemal, developmental, and
extemal—were formulated to serve as theoretical rationales for identifying validity
evidence of the MCAM. Speciﬁcally, in order to fully address the content aspect of
validity (Messick, 1995), an internal model was developed to deﬁne the domains that
were relevant to and representative of the construct of acculturation. As an effort to carry
out the internal model to the instrument, a test blueprint was created to indicate the
potential processes of the domains that were relevant to measurement and the relative
weight of each of the process-domain combinations. Items were then created to match the
distribution mapped in the test blueprint and reviewed by experts to ensure the technical
quality of the items. In order to provide a basis for evaluating the structural aspect of
validity (Messick, 1995) of the MCAM, a developmental model was formulated
regarding the relative difﬁculty of items that belong to various acculturation domains. In
order to provide a basis for evaluating the external aspect of validity (Messick, 1995) of
the MCAM, an external model was constructed regarding how different demographic
groups might differ on their patterns of acculturation and the relationships between
acculturation and other related constructs. Furthermore, a pilot study was conducted to
evaluate various aspects of validity of the initial items of the MCAM. The results of the
pilot study served as the initial empirical source for reﬁning the developmental and

external models.

Theoretical Framework of the Multidimensional Chinese Acculturation Measure
(MCAM)
Unidimensional Versus Bidimensional Models

The unidimensional and bidimensional perspectives differ in two ways: the
differences in viewing culture as coherent or fragmented (DiMaggio, 1997) and the
differences in viewing the relationship between the culture of origin and the new culture
(Ryder et al., 2000). Theorists who maintain a unidimensional perspective conceptualize
a culture as an integrated, coherent, and strongly thematized structure internalized in the
human mind. They assume that the culture of origin and the new culture exist on the two
poles along a single continuum. They believe that an individual undergoing acculturation
is developing a new identity in which the culture of origin is gradually relinquished while
the new culture is taking its place (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Ryder et al.). In contrast,
theorists who adopt a bidimensional perspective comprehend culture as a loose network
of domain-speciﬁc knowledge structure or a “toolkit” of odds and ends (Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). They argue that the culture of origin and the new culture
are independent of one another and exist on two different dimensions. An individual may
internalize elements in both the culture of origin and the new culture simultaneously even
if the elements are inconsistent or in conﬂict with one another (Hong et al., 2000). In
other words, absorption of the new culture is not necessarily equal to rejection of the
culture of origin (DiMaggio, 1997; Ryder et al.).

From a bidimensional perspective, Berry and Sam (1996) argued that individuals
undergoing the acculturation process face with two major issues. One issue is cultural

maintenance (to what extent does the individual want to maintain the culture of origin?)

The other issue is contact and participation (to what extent does the individual want to
embrace the new culture?) Considering these two issues/dimensions, these individuals
could use four types of strategies (see Figure 2) to manage the two cultures: assimilation
(low cultural maintenance, high involvement in the new culture), separation (high
cultural maintenance, low involvement in the new culture), marginalization (low on both
cultural maintenance and involvement in the new culture), and integration (high on both
cultural maintenance and involvement in the new culture). According to Berry and Sam
(1996), maintaining biculturalism is possible and preferable. They argued that individuals
who use integration or bicultural acculturation strategy appear to have positive adaptation
outcomes (e.g., better psychological well-being).

Several empirical studies support the bidimensional over the unidimensional
perspective. For instance, in their study of comparison of the two perspectives, Ryder et
al. demonstrated empirical evidence that supported the bidimensional over
unidimensional view. With samples of ﬁrst-generation and second-generation college
Students of Chinese ancestry across two studies, they found nonsigniﬁcant to low
correlations (r = .09— -. l 8) between the participants’ identiﬁcation with the culture of
origin and with the new culture. Moreover, they found that the two dimensions (i.e.,
Mainstream subscale and Heritage subscale) as measured by the Vancouver Index of
Acculturation (VIA, Ryder et al., 2000) showed distinctive and noninverse patterns of
correlations with measures of self-construal and adjustment. Speciﬁcally, while the
Mainstream component of the VIA yielded signiﬁcant effects in the direction of greater
adjustment, the Heritage component Showed no such association. Ryder et al. also

demonstrated with their samples that the bidimensional measure (i.e., the VIA) provided

10

more sophisticated information than the unidimensional measure (i.e., the SL-ASIA).
Ryder et al. pointed out that although the SL-ASIA also exhibited predictive power for
psychological adjustment, this result led to two interpretations: (a) acquiring a new
identity leads to a greater adjustment, and (b) losing the old identity leads to greater
adjustment. On the contrary, the results demonstrated by the VIA only supported the
former interpretation.

Several cognitive experimental studies (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris,
2002; Hong et al., 2000; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002) found evidence that bicultural
individuals switch their interpretive frames rooted in different cultures in response to cues
in the social environment. In other words, “the two internalized cultures take turns in
guiding their thoughts and feelings” (Hong et al., p.710) and an individual’s selection of
two cultural frames depends on the accessibility of the cultures at that particular point in
time. Consistently, lnclan (1980, as cited in Gushue '& Sciarra, 1995) found that the
constructs of “American-ness” and “Puerto Rican-ness” were highly and positively
correlated with one another within a sample of second-generation Puerto Rican women.
These results seriously challenged the validity of the unidimensional perspective.

Results of other studies suggested that the construct of acculturation involves
various domains and an individual could exhibit different levels and patterns of
acculturation across various domains. These results also supported the bidimensional
model over the unidimensional model. Keefe and Padilla (1987, as cited in Gushue &
Sciarra, 1995) found that some Mexican immigrants who were highly acculturated to
American culture in some domains (e.g., language use) maintained, and even

Strengthened, their Mexican culture in others (e.g., extended family and kinship network).

11

Rosenthal and F eldman (1990) also supported this multidimensional conceptualization
that acculturation does not process on an alloor-none basis. In examining the links
between second language acquisition and acculturation related variables among Chinese
college students in a Canadian university, Young and Gardner (1990) reported that while
second language acquisition was related to identiﬁcation with the society of settlement, it
does not imply assimilation.
Internal Model

A bidimensional multi-domain model of acculturation was chosen to develop the
Multidimensional Chinese Acculturation Measure (MCAM) following Berry’s (1980)
conceptualization. Acculturation is operationally deﬁned as behavioral, cognitive, and
attitudinal changes when an individual encounters a new culture that is different from
his/her original culture. As presented in Figure-4, the construct of acculturation includes
two dimensions: involvements in the American culture and involvements in the Chinese
culture. One’s acculturation level is depicted on a two-dimensional space by one’s
locations on both dimensions and categorized as using one of the four acculturation
strategies (i.e., assimilation, separation, marginalization, and integration). Furthermore,
within each cultural dimension, the MCAM intends to capture different realms of
acculturation. AS stated earlier, acculturation includes several domains and one’s
acculturation level can be domain speciﬁc. An individual can be highly acculturated to
the American culture in some domains of his or her life (e.g., language use) but not be
acculturated in other domains (e.g., values).

The domains that existing acculturation measures attempt to capture are not

inclusive. While some measures largely focus on the language domain (e.g., the Marin

12

Acculturation Scale; Marin, Sabogal, Van Oss Marin, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable,
1987) most measures do not tap into the values domain of acculturation (e.g., Asian
American Acculturation Inventory, F lannery, 1996; Asian American Multidimensional
Acculturation Scale, Chung et al., 2004; SL-AISA, Suinn et al., 1987). Factor analyses
conducted by several acculturation researchers (Cuéllar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Suinn,
Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992) consistently revealed that the construct of acculturation include
the following domains: a) language, b) ethnic interaction, c) cultural heritage and ethnic
behaviors (e.g., practice cultural customs,'engage in cultural leisure activities, and
participate in cultural holidays), d) food preference, and e) ethnic and generational
identity. An exhausted literature review (Barry, 2001; Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado,
1995; Gupta & Yick, 2001; Johnson, Wall, & Guanipa, 2002; Marin & Gamba, 1996;
Mendoza, 1989; Nguyen & Eye, 2002; Stephenson, 2000) revealed that other
acculturation measures also include these domains and do not have additional domains.
These domains not only appear to be salient areas for acculturation changes to occur, but
also are theoretically and empirically driven. However, there are some problems with this
list of domains.

First, regarding the domain of ethnic identity, although acculturation and ethnic
identiﬁcation have been used interchangeably, some researchers have argued that they are
related, yet separate, constructs (Johnson et al., 2002; Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, &
Alexander, 1995). For example, some may be highly acculturated to the American culture
but still identify themselves as Chinese because of country of birth. On the other hand,
for some individuals living in a Chinatown, they may not need to adapt to the American

culture but identify themselves as Chinese American just because of their citizenship

l3

status. Therefore, the inclusion of ethnic identity in the construct of acculturation can be
problematic. Moreover, the inclusion of generational identity (e.g., lst generation, 2nd
generation Chinese-American) does not seem to be relevant to the construct of
acculturation. Generational identity is a status, which certainly relates to one’s
acculturation level, but does not describe one’s behavioral, cognitive, and attitudinal
“changes.” More appropriately, it can be used to evaluate the external validity of an
acculturation measure (i.e., 2nd generation Chinese-Americans would be expected to be
more acculturated to the American culture than '1 st generation Chinese-Americans).
Finally, existing acculturation measures (e.g., Cuéllar et al., 1980; Suinn et al., 1992)
have been criticized for not covering an important domain of acculturation—value
system. The values domain is particularly important because literature (Szapocznik &
Kurtines, 1980; Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995) has indicated that the behavioral
acculturation process occurs more rapidly than the values acculturation process. Although
Suinn et al. (1992) had attempted to add two items to capture the domain of values, no
validity information on those items is available. . -

Taken together, the acculturation construct that the MCAM intends to measure
includes the following domains (see Figure 4): a) language, b) food, c) leisure activity, d)
ethnic interaction, e) cultural participation, and f) values. This list was determined by
modifying the list suggested by the factor analyses conducted by Cuéllar et al. (1980) and
Suinn et al. (1992) regarding the aforementioned problems. The domain of values was
added, the domains of ethnic and generational identity were deleted, and the domains of
cultural heritage and ethnic behaviors were separated into leisure activity and cultural

participation for the beneﬁt of speciﬁcity. This effort to deﬁne domains that are relevant

l4

to and representative of the construct of acculturation addressed the content aspect of
validity (Messick, 1995) of the MCAM.
Developmental Model

It has been documented that the acculturation experiences of native-born Chinese
(NBC) and American-born Chinese (ABC) are likely to be distinct (Benet-Martinez et al.,
2002; Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay, 2003; Tsai, Lee, & Ying, 2000). NBC are usually
exposed to the American culture after the Chinese culture is embedded in their mindset.
On the other hand, ABC are usually exposed to the American and Chinese cultures
Simultaneously. While the American culture is considered the “new culture” to NBC, it is
not the case for ABC. As the MCAM is designed for NBC and ABC, different
developmental models are proposed for the two groups. The developmental models
served as the bases for evaluating the structural aspect of validity (Messick, 1995) of the
MCAM.
Native-born Chinese (NBC)l

Involvement in the American culture (IA C) dimension. As stated earlier, the
literature has suggested that one may acculturate at different rates in the different aspects
(e.g., language, values) of acculturation. Speciﬁcally, Szapocznik and Kurtines (1980)
proposed that individuals would learn the behaviors needed to survive in a new culture
before they acquire the values of the new culture. Similarly, Marin (1992) suggested that
there are three developmental/process levels during the acculturation process that are
suitable for immigrants (i.e., NBC). The three process levels include the superﬁcial, the
intermediate, and the signiﬁcant. Marin (1992) maintained that as one undergoes the

acculturation process, some changes are likely to precede the others. In the beginning of

15

the acculturation process, the superﬁcial level of changes are likely to occur, such as
learning and forgetting of historical facts and traditions, and changing diet to include food
from the dominant society. AS the acculturation process goes on, one would start
engaging in intermediate level of changes, such as language use and preference, degree of
interaction within ethnic and dominant societies, and environmental preferences such as
media. The signiﬁcant level of changes involves beliefs, values, and norms. This level of
change is likely to occur last. This conceptualization seems reasonable since individuals
would need to change on the superﬁcial and intermediate levels in order to survive in the
new society. However, they might not need to change their values or beliefs. Moreover,
since values and beliefs are the central domains of a culture, they might not easily be
changed.

Since Marin’s (1992) process model was based on the Hispanic population, it may
warrant some revisions for NBC. First of all, since the Hispanic population is the largest
immigrants group in the United States, learning English may not be as important for
survival for them because they can settle in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
While this may be true for some Chinese immigrants who settle in predominantly
Chinese neighborhoods (i.e., Chinatown), a large percentage of the Chinese population
resides in non-Chinese neighborhoods (USCB, 2002). Therefore, the acculturation
process of language use may be likely to occur in the superﬁcial stage for this population.

Moreover, in the pilot study (see Instrument Development section below for
details) of the MCAM conducted by the author, surprisingly, the items in the food
domain were harder to endorse than expected by Marin’s (1992) model. One possible

explanation for this result is that Chinese food and groceries are readily available in the

16

subjects’ neighborhoods so they don’t have to adapt to American food. In fact, this may
be the current situation in the U.S..where Chinese restaurants and grocery stores can be
found in urban, suburban, and even rural settings. Consequently, current Chinese
immigrants may not need to change their diet to survive in the US. Moreover, this result
might be a reﬂection of Kalcik’s (1985) statement stressing that “foodways——the whole
pattern of what is eaten, when, what, how, and what it means—are extremely resistant to
change, despite pressure from the majority culture, because food is our earliest
introduction to culture and therefore the last to be changed” (p. 38).

As shown in Figure 5, applying Marin’s (1992) process model to the MCAM with
the modiﬁcation stated above, the acculturation processes of language for NBC on the
IAC dimension was hypothesized to occur in the superﬁcial level of the process. The
acculturation processes of leisure activity, ethnic interaction, and food were hypothesized
to occur in the intermediate level. The acculturation process of cultural participation was
hypothesized to occur between the intermediate and signiﬁcant level. Finally, the
signiﬁcant level of changes would involve the domain of values.

Involvement in the Chinese culture (ICC) dimension. With slight adaptation of the
previous model, Figure 5 also shows the developmental model for NBC on the ICC
dimension. It is reasonable to expect that a person is not likely to forget how to use
his/her native language. When food from both the indigenous and the new cultures is
equally available, one is likely to ﬁnd indigenous food familiar and comforting. As
Kalcik (1985) noted, “traditional foods and the manner in which food is consumed form a
link to the past and ease the shock and discomfort of entering a new culture” (p. 37). On

the other hand, NBC might have fewer opportunities and resources to make Chinese

17

friends and engage in Chinese customs, leisure activities, and celebrations in the US,
The acculturation processes of these domains were hypothesized to occur in the
intermediate level. The acculturation process for the values domain was hypothesized to
occur between the superﬁcial and intermediate level.

American-born Chinese (ABC)

Involvement in the American culture (IA C) dimension. The literature has
suggested that ABC often considered themselves “bicultural.” Their involvement in the
American culture starts at birth, unlike the NBC whose involvement is a gradual process.
However, since the ABC are born to Chinese parents, they are inﬂuenced primarily by
their parents’ values early in their lives until they are exposed to American values by
their non-Chinese peers. Therefore, this study hypothesized that ABC would become
involved in all domains of the IAC dimension in the superﬁcial level, except for the
values domain, which would occur in the intermediate level (see Figure 5).

Involvement in the Chinese culture (ICC) dimension. Although ABC are exposed
to both cultures at the same time, their exposure to the Chinese culture is more limited
and their involvement in the Chinese culture is not vital for survival. For example, they
do not need to speak Chinese to survive in the US. Moreover, as young Chinese-
Americans gradually develop their self-identity, they might be more inclined to identify
with their peers and differentiate themselves from their parents. The literature also
suggested that Chinese-American families often experience family conﬂicts that might
relate to the difference in rates of acculturation between parents and their children (Lee et
al., 2000; Li, 1998). Mirkin (1998) further argued that a common cause of these family

conﬂicts is, whereas parents try to maintain the values of the culture of origin, children

18

often have greater exposure to the norms of the US. culture through school and
friendships. These family conﬂicts are likely to intensify as children try to act like their
American peers and parents see these behaviors as turning against the family and its
values. On the other hand, ABC are likely to eat Chinese food at home and associate with
people of Similar racial backgrounds (Weiten & Lloyd, 2000). Therefore, the current
study hypothesized that ABC would become involved in the food and ethnic interaction
domains of Chinese cultures in the superﬁcial level, followed by those in the language
and values domains, then those in the leisure activity and cultural participation domains
in the signiﬁcant level because these opportunities are not easily available (see Figure 5).
External Model

Based on an exhaustive literature review, an external model was constructed
regarding how acculturation relates to demographic variables as well as other related
constructs. This model served as the basis to evaluatethe external aspect of validity
(Messick, 1995) of the MCAM.

The literature suggests that acculturation and ethnic identity (El) are related
constructs. Berry and Sam’s (1996) acculturation framework also proposed that several
demographic factors, at both individual and group levels, could affect an individual’s
acculturation outcome. At the individual level, this study intended to investigate the
relationships between acculturation and length of residence in the US. (LR), generational
status (GS), age of immigration (A01), and mobility (MB, i.e., whether their stay in the
United States is permanent, temporary, or undecided). At the group level, the
relationships between acculturation and geographic location (GL, i.e., regions of the

US), urbanity (U, i.e., urban, suburban, and rural), and the location of education (LE,

19

e.g., in the US. or in countries of origin) were examined. Moreover, the results obtained
from the MCAM should be correlated to ethnic identity and other acculturation measures
(e.g., SL-ASIA). Literature also has suggested predictive relationships between
acculturation, psychological well-being (PWB) and attitudes toward seeking professional
psychological help (ATSPPH). The relationships between acculturation and these
variables are illustrated in Figure 6 and discussed below.

Demographic Variables at the Individual Level: Length of Residence in the US. (LR),
Generational Status (GS), Age of Immigration (A OI), and Mobility (MB)

Several demographic variables create great diversity of acculturation among
Chinese Americans in the US. (E. Lee, 1996). For NBC, their acculturation to the
American culture should be positively related to their exposure to American culture,
which was measured by individuals’ length of residence in the US. For both NBC and
ABC, their involvement in the Chinese culture should be negatively related to their
generational status. As their generational status increases, they might receive less
education about, or exposure to, Chinese culture from their parents (Suinn et al., 1992; B.
S. K. Kim et al., 2003). On the contrary, their generational status Should correlate
positively with their involvement in the American culture.

Age of immigration is another important variable associated with NBC’S
acculturation level (E. Lee, 1996). In Tsai et al.’s (2000) study investigating the meanings
of “being Chinese” and “being American” among Chinese and Chinese-Americans, they
found variations among ABC, NBC who arrived in the US. before age 12, and NBC who
arrived in the US after age 12. These authors hypothesized that this might be related to

the development of identity formation. While NBC who arrived in the US. after age 12

20

might have developed a sense of “Chineseness” before they immigrate to the U.S., NBC
who arrived in the US. before age 12 might have been too young to develop a sense of
identity. Therefore, NBC who arrived in the US before age 12 might have an easier time
to adopt the American culture. Similarly, B. S. K. Kim et al. (2003) also found that 1.5
generation Asian-Americans, deﬁned as arriving in the US. as young children, are more
receptive of American cultures.

Mobility, whether an individual’s stay in the US. is permanent or temporary, can
inﬂuence the individual’s acculturation process (Berry & Sam, 1996). Immigrants tend to
reside permanently in the U.S., while international students or guest workers are more
likely to go back to their home country. If a person intends to live in the US.
permanently, he or she is likely to feel a greater need to adapt to the American culture at
a deeper level. On the contrary, if a person intends to return to his or her home country,
he or she is likely to maintain ties with home country.

Demographic Variables at the Group Level: Geographical Location (GL), Urbanity (U),
and Location Received the Majority of Education (LE)

Berry and Sam (1996) stressed the importance of incorporating group level
variables in acculturation studies. The geographic location and urbanity of a person’s
residence would certainly relate to his or her acculturation process. Individuals who live
on the east coast and west coast would have easier access to Chinese social communities,
health services, food, media, since both US. coasts have the largest Chinatowns and
greatest Chinese populations compared to other regions of the US. Similarly, individuals
who live in urban areas would have easier access to Chinese resources than those who

live in suburban and rural areas. As a result, those who live in neighborhoods with

21

limited access to Chinese goods or services may be forced to adapt to American culture
more rapidly. Where a person obtained his or her education from would also affect his or
her acceptance to American culture. Individuals who received the majority of their
education in the US. would have greater exposure to the American culture than those
who received the majority of their education in their home country.

Other Acculturation Measures

According to the Suen’s (1990) multitrait-multimethod matrix, the correlations
between two different instruments measuring the same construct should be moderate, or
at least signiﬁcantly different from zero. Hence, the results obtained from the MCAM
should be correlated with the results obtained from the SL-ASIA (Suinn et al., 1987).
Ethnic Identity (E1)

As stated earlier, acculturation and ethnic identity are often mistakenly used
interchangeably. However, several theoretical conceptualizations have concluded that
these two constructs are related yet distinct (Rowe, Behrens, & Leach, 1995). Two
studies (Cuéllar, Nyberg, Maldonado, & Roberts, 1997; Johnson et al., 2002) examining
the relationships between acculturation and ethnic identity among Mexican American and
Asian Americans, respectively, also demonstrated that acculturation and ethnic identity
are positively related but separate constructs. According to Rowe et al., the deﬁnition of
ethnic identity is one’s sense of identiﬁcation and belonging to an ethnic group. While
one might be of the Chinese descent, one might identify himself/herself as Chinese,
Chinese-American, or American (which can be inﬂuenced by length of residence in the

U.S., generational status, age of immigration, and citizenship).

22

Psychological Well Being (PWB)

Most recent empirical literature has suggested that a balance of acculturation to
the new culture and involvement in the culture of origin promoted psychological well-
being. Lieber et al. (2001) examined whether acculturation level and Asian identity
would predict quality of life for Chinese immigrants. They found that the main effects of
both acculturation and Asian identity in explaining immigrants’ quality of life were
signiﬁcant. Moreover, the acculturation-by-Asian identity interaction effect was also
signiﬁcant in explaining immigrants’ quality of life. This suggested that while some
degree of acculturation is related .to immigrants’ quality of life, some degree of
maintenance of ethnic culture is also desirable. Eyou, Adair, and Dixon (2000) found that
in New Zealand, Chinese immigrant students who integrated both mainstream culture and
Chinese culture demonstrated higher self-esteem than those who did not integrate both
cultures. Sam (2000) reported that among immigrants living in Norway, successful
psychological adaptation involved the balancing of their heritage culture and the culture
of the society of settlement. Similarly, in Finland Liebkind and Jasinskaja-Lahti (2000)
found that among adolescent immigrants from various countries, while second-language
proﬁciency was positively related to psychological well-being, adherence to traditional
family-related values also promoted psychological well-being. These results are
consistent with Berry and Sam’s (1996) conclusion that the integrative approach is the
most preferred among the four acculturation strategies.

Attitudes toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help (A TSPPH)
Although Chinese and Chinese-American are known to underutilize professional

psychological help and tend to have negative attitudes toward counseling (Leong,

23

Wagner, & Tata, 1995; Kim et al., 2003), acculturation has been found to explain some
variations in this phenomenon. Speciﬁcally, in a sample of 557 Asian-American students
(which included 263 Chinese-Americans), Atkinson and Gim (1989) found that more
acculturated students were more likely to recognize personal need for professional
psychological help, more tolerant of the stigma associated with seeking psychological
help, and more open to discussing their problems with a psychologist. Similarly, in Tata
and Leong’s (1994) study of 219 Chinese-American college students, acculturation was
found to account for 3% of the variance of attitudes toward seeking professional
psychological help. Students who were more acculturated to the American culture have
more positive attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. More recently,
Hom’s (1998) study with 323 Asian-American college students yielded similar results.
As Leong et al. (1995) indicated, the fact that the mental health approaches at the
time were dominantly Western oriented and lacking multicultural sensitivity might
explain these results. Whereas the Western counseling approach encourages the use of
verbal communication and individualism, the Chinese culture regards quietness and
modesty as virtues and values collectivism. Moreover, Chinese and Chinese Americans
often seek help from family members and keep problems from outsiders for fear of
bringing disgrace to the family (E. Lee, 1996). Hence, these cultural contradictions
dissuade “traditional” Chinese/Chinese Americans from seeking professional
psychological help. AS one becomes more accustomed to Western values, one might be
more open to seek counseling. Kim and Omizo’s (2003) study based on 242 Asian-

American college students provided empirical evidence for this explanation. They found

24

that the students who adhered more to Asian cultural values have more negative attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help and are less willing to see a counselor.
Instrumentation
Following the theoretical rationale of the internal model, a list of potential
indicators of acculturation were identiﬁed and sampled to ensure that the MCAM would
include items that are relevant to and representative of the construct of acculturation. A
blueprint was then created to indicate the potential processes of the domains that were
- relevant to measurement and the relative weight of each of the process-domain
. combinations. These efforts attended to the content aspect of validity for the MCAM
(Messick, 1995).
Potential Indicators
As a Chinese individual is undergoing acculturation to the American culture,
many changes can be observed. These changes can be involved in a variety of life
domains such as language use (including reading, writing, speaking, and listening), social
interaction, eating habits, dress, house decoration, spiritual life, manners, leisure activities
(e.g., movie, music, sports), knowledge about the history of America, knowledge about
the famous people in the America, customs, holiday rituals, societal values, familial
values, values in ﬁnancial management, pride associated with both the Chinese and the
American culture, thinking Styles, and so on (Ponterotto et al.,, 1995). For example, in
terms of language use, the individual is likely to use English more frequently, become
more proﬁcient in English, and become less apprehensive when using English. On the
other hand, the individual may use Chinese less frequently and possibly (or not) become

less ﬂuent when using Chinese. In terms of eating habits, one may become used to

25

American food, gradually liking American food, and eating American food. On the other
hand, one may move from missing Chinese food to getting used to not having the “real”
Chinese food. In terms of social interaction, one may move from feeling awkward when
interacting with American people to feeling comfortable around them and increasing
interaction with them.

Changes in these life domains can be categorized as knowledge, behavioral, and
attitudinal. Cognitively, acquisition (of the American culture) and involvement (of the
Chinese culture) of the language, knowledge, value, -or thinking styles are occurring.
Behaviorally, individuals’ acculturation may beassessed by the degree they engage or
disengage in the activities that are of the norms of the American culture or the Chinese
cultures. Also, individuals’ acculturation may be determined by the extent they afﬁliate
or socialize with Chinese or Americans. Attitudinally, individuals’ acculturation can be
evaluated by the degree they appreciates the norms of the American culture or the
Chinese culture or by how much they enjoy interacting with people from both cultural
groups. In sum, acculturation is operationally deﬁned as the process and the result of
knowledge, behavioral, and attitudinal changes in the aforementioned life domains
involved in both American and Chinese cultures.

Content Sampling and Substantive Sampling

Since it is not possible to measure all the potential indicators due to ﬁnancial and
time constraints, a sample of indicators were selected following the domains described in
the internal model. These indicators are categorized in the domains of language (i.e.,
reading/writing/speaking usage and ﬂuency), food, leisure activity (e.g., music, movie,

TV, sports), ethnic interaction (e.g., comforts and interests in interacting with certain

26

ethnic groups), cultural participation (e.g., participation in certain types of
holidays/occasions/events), and viewpoints or values. Moreover, although each of the
knowledge, behavioral, and attitudinal processes can be applied to all the domains, some
seem less important than others. Speciﬁcally, the attitudinal process of language use (e.g.,
whether one likes English or not) was not sampled because it is not as important as the
knowledge (i.e., proﬁciency) and behavioral (i.e., frequency of use) processes. The
knowledge process of the domain of food (e.g., whether one knows what type of food is
American or Chinese) was also not sampled for the same reason. Table A1 Shows the
blueprint indicating the relative weight of each combination of the processes and
domains. The domain of food was given less weight because it covers less potential
indicators. On the other hand, the domain of cultural participation was given more weight
because it includes more indicators.
Instrument Development:
Initial Development

Items were created for each domain and process combination as described in the
test blueprint to establish the content aspect of validity (Messick, 1995). A review of the
literature on acculturation measures (Barry, 2001; Cuéllar et al., 1995; Gupta & Yick,
2001; Johnson et al., 2002; Marin & Gamba, 1996; Mendoza, 1989; Nguyen & Eye,
2002; Stephenson, 2000; Suinn et al., 1992) was conducted to generate ideas for potential
items. Sixty items (see Appendix C) were created initially as pairs for both dimensions of
the construct, resulting in 30 items in each subscale (i.e., MCAM-Involvement in the
Chinese culture subscale [MCAM-C] and MCAM-Involvement in the American culture

subscale [MCAM-AD. Table A2 summarizes the distribution of the items for each

27

domain and process combination. Appendix C lists each item with its respective
associations to the processes and the domains. Content and substantive validity were
established by roughly matching the distribution of the items and the weight of each
domain and process as described in the test blueprint.
First Revision after Expert Review

In order to further establish the content aspect of the validity (Messick, 1995) of
the MCAM, four experts were asked to review the initially developed items to ensure the
technical quality of the items. One expert was knowledgeable with measurement
construction and three experts were familiar with the construct of acculturation. Table A3
summarizes the revisions on the items based on these experts’ feedback. Ten items were
deleted because they seemed less important to the construct of acculturation. Six items
were added to capture important values in terms of marriage and individualism versus
collectivism. The wording was revised and additional examples were‘added for some
items for clarity. For example, items 33 and 34 (i.e., “Do you have a Chinese [or
American] way of living styles?”) were changed to “In general, my living style is very
Chinese (or American)” “Practicing Tai-chi” was added as an example to item 16 (i.e.,
Chinese leisure activities). “Confucianism” and “Taoism” were added as examples to
item 55 (i.e., “Do you agree with Chinese values systems [e.g., about marriage, families,
education, work, etc.]?”) and “individualism” was added as an example to item 56 (i .e.,
“Do you agree with American value system [e.g., about marriage, families, education,
work, etc.]?”).

After these revisions, the MCAM included 56 items with 28 items in each

subscale. These items were then categorized into three 5-point Likert-type rating scales

28

according to their appropriateness. The scales are: 1) ability (1 represents not at all, 5
represents extremely); 2) frequency (1 represents almost never, 5 represents almost
always); and 3) agreeability (1 represents strongly disagree, 5 represents strongly agree).
Since developing the MCAM is primarily for research purposes, the interpretation of the
ratings will be criterion referenced. The average (with a possible value from 1 to 5) of
respondents’ ratings on items within each subscale was interpreted as his/her involvement
level on each dimension of the acculturation construct. Since the construct of
acculturation was operationally deﬁned as a continuous variable lying on a two-
dimensional space, the use of Likert-type rating scale was appropriate and addressed
Messick’s (1995) structural aspect of validity. The composite of the rating average on
both subscales dictates the acculturation strategies the respondent uses: 1) respondents
who score 3 or more on both subscales are integration users; 2) respondents who score 3
or more on the MCAM-A subscale but score below 3 on the MCAM-C subscale are
assimilation users; 3) respondents who score below 3 on the MCAM-A subscale but
score 3 or higher on the MCAM-C subscale are separation users; and 4) respondents who
score below 3 on both subscales are marginalization users. The use of 3 as the cut-off
score was based on the theoretical conceptualization that the score 1 and the score 5 of
the rating scales represents the two ends of each culture dimension thus the score 3
represents the mid point of each dimension.
Second Revision: A Pilot Study

The 56-item MCAM was pilot tested with a sample of 54 people (23 men and 31

women). The Rasch Rating Scale model (RSM, Wright & Masters, 1982) was employed

to scale the Likert-type responses on each subscale of the MCAM. Overall, the results of

29

the pilot study yielded considerable validation support for the MCAM in various aspects
of validity (Messick, 1995).

Speciﬁcally, the structural aspect of validity of the MCAM was supported by the
results of the principal component analysis on the full scale of the MCAM. It was very
powerful to see that the data supported the bidimensional conceptualization of
acculturation. The structural aspect of validity for the MCAM was also supported by a)
the results of rating scale analyses, and b) the relative ordering of item difﬁculties for
each acculturation domain. In general, the use of the 5-point Likert-type rating scales
appeared appropriate and satisfactory according to Linacre’s (2002a) guidelines. The
relative ordering of item difﬁculties for each acculturation domain was consistent with
the expectations of the development models. The only exception was that both NBC and
ABC did not ﬁnd the food domain of the MCAM-A subscale as easy to endorse than
expected. This result might reﬂect the current situation in the US. that Chinese food is
easily accessible thus Chinese and Chinese-Americans are not forced to adapt to
American food. This also suggested that the developmental models should be revised.

The ﬁt indices indicated that most of the items were satisfactory with the
exception of items 24 and 25 in both subscales and item 28 in the MCAM-A subscale.
This lent support for the content aspect of validity. The generalizability aspect of validity
was well supported by the facts that a) the items were shown to be strongly reliable
(>90) and adequately precise, b) the items in the MCAM did not seem to be gender
biased, and c) the items solicited different responses from ABC and NBC when their
acculturation level was controlled for. As explained earlier, ABC and NBC are likely to

have different acculturation experiences and the construct of acculturation for the two

30

groups might be different. Finally, as expected, ABC and NBC Showed signiﬁcantly
different acculturation levels on both MCAM subscales. This supplied some initial
support for the external aspect of validity for the MCAM.

The pilot study was able to detect some potential problems in the 56-item version
of the MCAM. Table A4 summarizes revisions of the items as suggested by the pilot
study results. A new item (i.e., “I understand Chinese [American] culture very well”) that
intended to capture the knowledge process of the cultural participation domain was added
to each subscale to make the instrument more inclusive and aligned with its theoretical
model. The ﬁnal version of the MCAM includes a total of 58 items and 29 items in each
subscale (see Appendix E). Appendix E also lists each item with its respective
associations to the processes and the domains mapped in the test blueprint. Table A5
summarizes the distribution of the items for each domain and process combination after
these revisions. This distribution still roughly matches the weight of each domain and
process as described in the test blueprint. Refer to Appendix D for a more detailed
description of the pilot study.

Summary and Research Questions

Although the contemporary conceptualization of the construct of acculturation
favors a bidimensional multi-domain model over a unidimensional model, a satisfactory
measure that follows the contemporary view for Chinese and Chinese-Americans is not
yet available. The purpose of this study was to validate such a measure—the MCAM—
based on Messick’s (1995) framework. This version of the MCAM included 58 items
with 29 items in each subscale (i.e., MCAM-A and MCAM-C). Speciﬁcally, the

validation focused on the following questions and hypotheses:

31

. Did responses to the MCAM exhibit better ﬁt to a bidimensional or a unidimensional
or some other measurement models? This question addressed Messick’s (1995)
structural aspect of validity.

. Were responses to the items contained in the MCAM consistent with latent trait
model expectations? This question addressed Messick’s (1995) content aspect of
validity.

. Did respondents use the rating scales in a manner that was consistent with the
author’s intent and with latent trait measurement models? This question addressed
Messick’s (1995) structural aspect of validity.

. Were the levels of reliability and precision of the MCAM scores sufﬁcient for use in
research and counseling applications? This question addressed Messick’s (1995)

generalizability aspect of validity.

. Did the items contained in the MCAM exhibit evidence of measurement bias? This

question also addresses Messick’s (1995) generalizability aspect of validity.

. Were the patterns of the means across various acculturation domains consistent with
the developmental model of acculturation? This question addresses Messick’s (1995)
structural aspect of validity.

. Did MCAM respondent measures exhibit patterns across demographic groups that are
consistent with the external model? This question addressed Messick’s (1995)
external aspect of validity.

Speciﬁcally, the following research questions were explored:

7.1. Was generational status (GS) associated with the MCAM scores?

32

7.2. Was NBC’s length of residence in the US. (LR) associated with their MCAM-A
subscale scores?

7.3. Was NBC’S age of immigration (AOI) associated with their MCAM scores?

7.4. Did groups with different mobility (MB) status (permanent, temporary, or
undecided) exhibit different patterns on their MCAM scores?

7.5. Did groups that lived in different regions (GL) in the US. exhibit different
patterns on their MCAM scores?

7.6. Did groups that lived in different urbanity (U) neighborhoods exhibit different
patterns on their MCAM scores?

7.7. Did groups that received the majority of their education in different countries
(LE: US. or countries of origin) exhibit different patterns on their MCAM
scores?

. Did MCAM respondent measures correlate with measures of other constructs in a

manner consistent with the external model? This question addressed Messick’s (1995)

external aspect of validity.

Speciﬁcally, the following research questions were explored:

8.1. Were the MCAM scores predictive of the SL-ASIA scores?

8.2. Did groups with different ethnic identity (EI) exhibit different patterns on their
MCAM scores?

8.3. Did groups using different acculturation approaches (ACCA) exhibit different
patterns on their psychological well-being (PWB)?

8.4. Were the MCAM scores predictive of respondents’ attitudes toward seeking

professional psychological help (ATSPPH)?

33

Hypotheses

For research question one, I hypothesized that the responses to the MCAM would

exhibit a better ﬁt to a bidimensional measurement model than a unidimensional and

other measurement models. For research question ﬁve, two demographic variables

(gender and country of birth) were used to evaluate whether differential item functioning

(DIF) for different demographic groups exist. Respectively for these two variables, I

hypothesized that items would not exhibit DIF for men and .women, but would exhibit

DIF for ABC and NBC. For research question seven, thirteen hypotheses were generated

and listed below:

7.1.]

7.1.2

7.2.1

7.3.1

7.3.2

7.4.1

7.4.2

7.5.1

GS would negatively correlate with the MCAM-C scOres.

GS would positively correlate with the MCAM-A scores.

NBC’S score on the MCAM-A would be positively related to their LR.

NBC’S score on the MCAM-C would be positively related to their AOI.
NBC’s score on the MCAM-A would be negatively related to their AOI.
Groups with different mobility status would exhibit different patterns on the
MCAM subscales.

Speciﬁcally, the permanent group would score the lowest on the MCAM-C,
followed by the undecided group, and the temporary group would score the
highest. On the other hand, the permanent group would score the highest on the
MCAM-A, followed by the undecided group, and the temporary group would
score the lowest.

Groups living in different regions of the US. would exhibit different patterns on

the MCAM subscales.

34

7.5.2 Speciﬁcally, individuals who lived in the Northeastern and Western regions
would score higher on the MCAM-C than those who live in the other regions of
the US. On the other hand, individuals who lived in the Northeastern and
Western regions would score lower on the MCAM-A than those who live in the
other regions of the US.

7.6.1 Groups living in different urbanity neighborhoods would exhibit different
patterns on the MCAM subscales.

7.6.2 Speciﬁcally, individuals who lived in urban areas would score higher on the
MCAM-C than those who lived in suburban and rural areas. In contrast,
individuals who lived in urban areas would score lower on the MCAM-A than
those who lived in suburban and rural areas.

7.7.1 Groups receiving the majority of their education in different countries (US or
their home countries) would exhibit different patterns on the MCAM subscales.

7.7.2 Speciﬁcally, individuals who received the majority of their education in the US.
would score lower on the MCAM-C than those who received the majority of their
education in their country of origin. In contrast, individuals who received the
majority of their education in the US. would score higher on the MCAM-A than
those who received the majority of their education in their country of origin.

Six hypotheses were generated for research question eight. In terms of the
relationship between the MCAM and the SL-ASIA, since the two measures use different
theoretical frameworks of acculturation, the following hypotheses emerged:

8.1.1 The composite scores of the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A would be predictive of

the scores of the SL-ASIA.

35

In terms of the relationship between acculturation and ethnic identity, I hypothesized:

8.2.1

8.2.2

Groups with different El would exhibit different patterns on the MCAM
subscales.

Speciﬁcally, the Chinese-identiﬁed group would score the highest, followed by
the Chinese-American-identiﬁed, and the American-identiﬁed would score the
lowest on the MCAM-C. On the other hand, the Chinese-identiﬁed group would
score the lowest, followed by the Chinese-American-identiﬁed, and the

American-identiﬁed would score the highest on the MCAM-A.

In terms of the relationship between acculturation and psychological well-being, I

hypothesized:

8.3.1

8.3.2

Groups using different acculturation approaches (i.e., integration, assimilation,
separation, and marginalization) would exhibit different patterns on the PWB
measures.

Speciﬁcally, individuals who-Used the integrative acculturation approach (i.e.,
high involvements in both Amﬂican and Chinese cultures) would have better
PWB than their counterparts who used other acculturation approaches.

Regarding the relationship between acculturation and attitude toward seeking

professional psychological help, I hypothesized:

8.4.1

The composite scores of the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A would be predictive of

respondents’ ATSPPH.

Table A6 summarizes the research questions and hypotheses.

36

CHAPTER THREE: METHOD

An online survey was conducted to collect data to evaluate the aforementioned
research questions and hypotheses. The following sections describe the sample and the
procedures of the survey.

Sample

Six hundred and eighteen people participated in the survey. Thirty-three responses
(5.3%) were excluded from data analyses because these subjects completed the ﬁve-page,
126 items survey in less than three minutes, suggesting that they might not have read
every survey question carefully. The ﬁnal usable sample consists of 585 participants, 235
(40.2%) males and 350 (59.8%) females. The mean age for the participants (N = 578)
. was 25 (SD = 6.35) with a range from 18 to 59 years. Seven participants did not disclose
their age. Regarding marital status, 424 (725%) participants were single, 122 (20.9%)
were married, 12 (2.1%) had domestic partnerships, 6 (1%) were divorced, 10 (1.7%)
were cohabited, 7 (1.2%) reported other marital status, and 4 (0.7%) declined to provide
this information. A large percentage of the participants were students (N=271, 46.3%),
and 213 (36.4%) participants did not indicate their occupation. The distribution of
participants’ annual household income was as follows: below $20,000 (N = 107, 18.3%),
$20,001~40,000 (N = 135, 23.1%), $40,001~60,000 (N = 83, 14.2%), $60,001~80,000 (N
= 55, 9.4%), and $80,001 and above (N = 90, 15.4%); 115 participants (19.7%) chose not
to disclose their income.

Table A7 presents the distribution of participants’ place of birth and citizenship
status. In terms of generational status, 373 (63.8%) were ﬁrst generation (i.e., they were

born outside of US), 184 (31.55) were second generation (i.e., they were born in the

37

U.S. while both of their parents were born outside of the US.) 13 (2.2%) were third
generation (i.e., they and at least one of their parents were born in the US), 6 (1%) were
fourth generation, and 9 (1.5%) were ﬁfth generation or beyond.

In terms of education level, 216 (37%) participants had a graduate level degree,
198 (33.8%) had a bachelors degree, 104 (17.8%) had some college education but no
degree, 48 (8.2%) had high school diploma, 17 (2.9%) indicated other education, and 2
(0.3%) did not disclose this information. Table A8 Shows the cross-tabulation of where
participants received their highest level of education by where participants received the
majority of education. Table A9 shows participants’ distribution of geographical location
in terms of US. regions and the nature of their neighborhood (i.e., urban, suburban, and
rural). Table A10 shows a summary of participants’ reported reasons for immigration. In
terms'lof mobility, 282 (48.2%), 124 (21.2%), and'.158 (27%) participants reported their ‘ ~
stay in the US. was permanent, temporary, and undecided, respectively. Six individuals.
indicated other type of mobility and 15 individuals did not provide this information.

Table A11 shows the descriptive statistics of participants’ raw scores on the
MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales.

Procedures

Recruiting emails were sent to listservs (see Appendix F) with Chinese/Chinese-
American dominated population (e.g., listservs of Chinese student groups, listservs of
organizations with Chinese heritage) nationwide. The recruiting e-mails and
advertisements (see Appendix G) 1) introduced this investigation as a study about the
acculturation processes of Chinese/Taiwanese2 and Chinese/Faiwanesez—Americans; 2)

stated that their participation would be kept conﬁdential; 3) indicated that participants

38

would receive $5 for their participation; and 4) provided a link to the website of the
questionnaire.

The ﬁrst page of the website was an informed consent form (see Appendix H) that
assured the participants that their participation was entirely voluntary, their responses
would be kept conﬁdential, and they could withdraw at any time if they wish. Participants
were told that they need to 1) be older than 18 years of age; 2) currently reside in the
US; and 3) identify themselves as Chinese/Taiwanese or Chinese/Taiwanese—American
to be eligible to participate in the study. Eligible participants were directed to read
through the consent form and choose between the option to agree to participate and
proceed to the questionnaires, or the option to leave the Website. Upon completion of the
questionnaires, participants were directed to a separate website where they could provide
their full name and mailing address if they wished to obtain the $5 reimbursement.
Participants’ responses and identifying information were stored separately without any
association. Bank-issued checks were mailed to participants who wished to receive the
reimbursement shortly after the completion of the data collection. Forty-two participants
declined to receive the reimbursement.

The web-based design was chosen because it has several advantages over the
traditional methodologies (Bimbaum, 2000; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). First,
the absence of a researcher eliminates the implied situational demands for the participants
to continue their participation against their true wishes. Hence, participants have greater
freedom to withdraw from the study. Second, studies (see review in Bimbaum, 2000)
have shown that participants responding to an intemet survey are less prone to social

desirability than those responding to a mailed survey. This suggests that people might

39

feel more comfortable disclosing true answers on the Internet because of the privacy it
suggests. Since privacy is very important to the Chinese culture, this feature of Internet
study was especially beneﬁcial to the present study. Third, subjects who were difﬁcult to
access (like those of the present study) might be easier to reach via Internet recruitment.
Fourth, subjects recruited via Internet may be more representative in terms of age and
geographical locations than those recruited locally or at university settings. Finally, web-
based study usually has the advantage of acquiring a large sample size, thus resulting in a
decrease in the Type 11 error rate and an increase in power. In term of the validity of web-
based research, several researchers (see review in Bimbaum, 2000) have found the results
generated from web-based surveys comparable to those generated from traditional paper-
and-pencil surveys.

Like other research designs, web-based surveys are not immune to limitations.
For example, the condition in which participants completed the survey was uncontrolled.
Participants might complete the survey at work or at home, or while watching TV or
eating. This limitation is the same as if paper surveys are mailed to the participants.
Another limitation of the web-based survey is that the sample was limited to those who
have access to computers and the lntemet. Therefore, whether the sample obtained via
Internet would be representative of the population the study intended was questionable.
Moreover, since it was hard to assess the number of people receiving the e-mail
advertisements, the response rate was unknown thus the adequacy of it was also
unknown. Lastly, studies have Showed that user interface and respondent familiarity,
comfort, experience, access, and facility with computers could have an impact on the

data. Therefore, the data obtained online could be impacted by these variables.

40

Instruments

Participants completed the MCAM, the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity
Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn et al., 1987), the 21-item Hopkins Symptom
Checklist (HSC-2l; Green, Walkey, McCormick, & Taylor, 1988), the Attitudes Toward
Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—Short Form (ATSPPHS-S; Fischer &
Farina, 1995), and a demographics questionnaire. The time each participant spent on
completing the questionnaires was recorded. It took participants an average of 20.36
minutes (SD = 30.86) with a range of 4 to 631 minutes to complete the questionnaires.
Eight participants spent time that was two standard deviations greater than the mean (i.e.,
82.08 minutes) to complete the survey (ranged from 85 to 631 minutes). The reason that
these participants Spent considerably longer time than others to complete the survey may
have been because they did not complete the questionnaires in a single setting. After
removal of these outliers, the average time for the participants to complete the survey was
17.71 minutes (SD = 10.71) with a range of 4 to 72 minutes. Each measure except for the
MCAM is described below.

The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA)

The SL-ASIA (Suinn et al., 1987; see Appendix I) was used to measure the
unidimensional acculturation level and ethnic identity. The scale included 21 original
multiple-choice questions and 5 new items (Suinn, personal communication, February 7,
2002). The 21 items covered topics such as language (4 questions, e.g., What language
can you speak?) identity (4 questions, e.g., How do you identify yourself?) friendship
choice (4 questions, e.g., Whom do you now associate with in the community?) behavior

(5 questions, e. g., What is your food preference at home?) generation/geographic history

41

(3 questions, e.g., Where were you raised?) and attitudes (1 question, e.g., If you
consider yourself a member of the Asian group, how much pride do you have in this
group?) The choices of each item reﬂect different acculturation level scored as 1 (low
acculturation) to 5 (high acculturation). The acculturation score was obtained by
averaging the scores of all 21 items. Hence, the possible ﬁnal acculturation score could
range from 1 (low acculturation or “Asian-identiﬁed”) to 5 (high acculturation or
“Westem-identiﬁed”) A score of 3 reﬂects “bicultural.”

Previous investigations reported high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha =
.91, Atkinson & Gim, 1989; .88, Suinn et al., 1987; .91, Suinn et al., 1992; .87, Tata &
Leong, 1994) on the 21-item SL-ASIA scores with both Asian samples in general and
Chinese samples speciﬁcally. The 21-item SL-ASIA measures also demonstrated strong
construct validity. Suinn et al. (1987) reported predicted increase in acculturation mean
scores for each generation (ﬁrst generation, M = 2.96; second, M = 3.57; third, M = 3.78;
fourth, M = 3.78; ﬁfth, M = 3.85); the association between higher scores on the measure
and greater number years in the US. (raised in Asia only, M = 2.36; mostly in Asia, M =
2.87; equally, M = 2.48; mostly in the U.S., M = 3.33; in US only, M = 3.67); and the
consistency between the scores and self-rating of acculturation. In the present study,
observed Cronbach alpha was .93.

Four of the 5 new items ask respondents to rate how much they believe in Asian
(item 22) or American (item 23) values and how well they ﬁt when with Asians (item 24)
or Americans (item 25) on a 5-point Likert type scale. Item 26 asks respondents to choose
one from the ﬁve choices that best describes how they identify themselves. The choices

depict a Chinese, American, Bicultural-Chinese, Bicultural-American, and Bicultural-

42

Bicultural identity, respectively. This item was be used to measure respondents’ ethnic
identity.
Psychological Well-Being Measures

Psychological well-being was measured by an item concerning life satisfaction
included as part of the demographic questionnaire and the HSC-21 (Green et al., 1988;
see Appendix J). The life satisfaction item asked, on a scale of 1 to 5, “how satisﬁed are
you with your life in the US?” The HSC-21 includes 21 psychological symptoms (e.g.,
feeling blue, numbness or tingling in parts of your body) that were derived from the
original 58-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels,
Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974). Respondents were instructed to rate how they have felt during
the past seven days on each symptom using a 4-point Likert-type scale with 1
representing “not at all” and 4 representing “extremely.” The 21 items were selected
using principle component analyses with three different samples. Three 7-item subscales
(i.e., performance difﬁculty [PD], somatic distress [SD], general feelings of distress
[GFD]) emerged consistently across the three samples, resulting in possible subscale
scores from 7 to 28 and total scores from 21 to 84. Higher scores indicate greater
symptomatic and poorer psychological well being. Conﬁrmatory analyses were
conducted with two independent college student samples to ensure the structure stability
of the HSC-2l. The HSC-21 exhibited high split-halves reliability (.88 for PD, .80 for
SD, .89 for GFD, and .91 for total scale) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .85
for PD, .75 for SD, .86 for GFD, and .90 for total scale). The present study obtained a

Cronbach alpha of .90 for scores on this scale.

43

The Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale-Short F arm
(A T SPPHS—S)

The ATSPPHS-S (Fischer & Farina, 1995; see Appendix K) measured attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help. The ATSPPHS-S is a 10-item self-report
measure, shortened and modiﬁed from the original 29-item ATSPPHS (Fischer & Turner,
1970). The scale includes equal numbers of pro-help-seeking (e.g., “I would want to get
psychological help if I were worried or upset for a long period of time”) and anti-help-
seeking statements (e.g., “The idea of talking about problems with a psychologist strikes
me as a poor way to get rid of emotional conﬂicts”) Respondents are asked to rate each
item on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (disagree) to 3 (Agree) indicating their
agreement. The total score may range from 0 to 30 with higher scores suggesting more
positive attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. The ATSPPHS-S
demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .84) and test-retest
reliability (.80) over a l-month interval (Fischer & Farina, 1995). Several point-biserial
correlations yielded evidence supporting the construct validity of the ATSPPHS-S.
Women were found to have more positive attitudes toward seeking professional
psychological help than men (r = .30, p <.0001). Subjects who have sought professional
help also have more positive attitudes than those who have not (r = .39, p < .0001 ,
overall; r = .24, p < .03, for women; r = .49, p < .0001, for men). The present study
observed a somewhat moderate Cronbach alpha of .79.

Demographics
Participants were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix

L) that collected the following information: age, gender, marital status, ethnicity of

44

spouse/partner (if married), religion, country of birth, citizenship status, state of
residency, highest level of education, where they received their highest education, where
they received the majority of their education, occupation, household income, satisfaction
with life in the U.S., where they would like to live permanently, their thoughts on how
the American society views Chinese or Chinese—Americans, nature of their current living
neighborhood (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural). For participants who were not born in the
U.S., the following items were asked as well: the nature of their neighborhood in their
home country, age of arriving the U.S., amount of time lived in the U.S., and reasons for

coming to the US.

45

Analyses
Model

The Multidimensional Random Coefﬁcients Multinomial Logit Model
(MRCMLM; Adams, Wilson, & Wang, 1997) was employed to scale the data. This
measurement model has several desirable features. Speciﬁcally, it (a) allows for non-
orthogonal (correlated) depiction of the multiple dimensions, (b) provides diagnostic
indices beyond those commonly available for evaluating the quality of the measures, (c)
can be implemented in commercially-available software, and ((1) allows for smaller
sample sizes than most other multidimensional measurement models.

The MRCMLM (Adams et al., 1997) is an extension-of the Rasch measurement
model and assumes a set of D traits underlie the respondents’ responses. This model is
appropriate because the MCAM depicts acculturation as a bidimensional latent trait.
According to the MRCMLM, a respondent’s (n) acculturation level on the D-dimensional
latent space (two dimensional in the present study) is represented by a vector of latent
traits 0n = [9:11, 0,,2, ..., Only]. A response in category k on item i of dimension d (d = l, 2,
..., D) is scored bud. The scores across D dimension for item i are represented by the
vector by; = [bu], big, ..., bum]. Item endorsabilities (6) are represented by a vector of P
parameters 5, = [6,1, 8;; NEW]. Design vectors a”, = [i = l, ..., I; k = l, ..., Ki] deﬁne linear
combinations of these parameters that relate to empirical characteristics of the response

categories of the item. Thus, the probability of a response in category k for item i is

 

modeled as
exp(b,.k0 + aikﬁ)
”nil: — K'. (1)
2 exp (but) + al.,,ﬁ)
k=l

46

Parameters were estimated using the Monte Carlo method as implemented in
Conquest (Wu, Adams, & Wilson, 1998). Maximum likelihood estimates in log-odds
units (logits) and the standard errors were computed for each parameter estimate.
Additional diagnostic indices (i.e., dimensionality, ﬁt indices, rating scale, reliability and
precision, differential item functioning [DIF], and validity) were examined to evaluate
the quality of the MCAM. Each of these indices is explained below. Refer to Table A6
for a summary of the research questions, related hypotheses, and corresponding analyses.

. Dimensionality

In order to evaluate the structural aspect of validity for the MCAM, the ﬁrst
research question (Did responses to the MCAM exhibit better ﬁt to a bidimensional or a
unidimensional measurement model or some other measurement models?) was examined.
A model-based evaluation of dimensionality was performed to evaluate the
dimensionality of the MCAM by calibrating the data to Six partial credit versions of the
MRCMLM: a unidimensional model, a cultural bidimensional model (MCAM-A and
MCAM-C), a three-process model (knowledge, behavior, and attitude), a six-domain
model (language, leisure activity, food, cultural participation, ethnic interaction, and
values), a three processes—by—two cultures model, and a Six domains—by-two cultures
model. The model-based evaluation of dimensionality performed was Similar to a
conﬁrmatory factor analysis except that what was done here was within a Rasch

framework. The Consistent Akiake Information Criterion proportionality constant,
2

PCMC = if— , for each model was examined, where G' is an adjustment of the deviance

statistic imposing a penalty to models that contain more parameters,

47

G’2 :02 +(p+prn(n)) , G2 is the deviance statistic, p is the number of parameters in the

model, and n is the number of observations in the data set (Bozdogan, 1987). In all cases,
smaller values of PCCAIC indicate that the observed and model-based expected values are
in better accord. The model that exhibited the smallest PCCAIC was considered the best
ﬁtting model. In addition, the correlations between the various dimensions were
examined to determine the degree to which various dimensions provided redundant
information.
Fit Indices

In an attempt to address the content aspect of validity for the MCAM, the
weighted mean square statistic was evaluated to determine the consistency between the
observed and the expected responses. This evaluation addressed the second research
question (Were responses to the items contained in the MCAM consistent with latent trait
model expectations?) This weighted mean [square statistic was developed by Wu (1997)
as an extension of the index introduced by. Wright and Masters (1982). This statistic is
based on the squared standardized residuals between the observed responses and the

expected responses derived from the MRCMLM. Standardized residuals,

(4an - E...)
Z,,.,(6i,.) = , were calculated, where A; is the p-th column of the
V Vnp

 

multidimensional design matrix A, A;x,, is the contribution of person It to the sufﬁcient

statistic for parameter p, and Em and V,.p are, respectively, the conditional expectation and

the variance of Aan (Wu, Adams, Wilson, 1998). Weighted mean square statistics were

then obtained by a weighted average of the squared residuals and then integrated over

posterior ability distributions,

48

— —

22:19..)Vnit9.) N ..
MSeig/zted: II. ”:1 N 17%(Qixgréﬂ’az
..., 9» 21416:.) "=1

 

 

xnngdgN—l ° ' da (2)

 

 

.l
where he is the marginal posterior distribution of 0. This ﬁt statistic is distributed as a chi-
square value, divided by its degree of freedom, which results in an expected value of 1.00
(represents deviations from expected values that are consistent with random sampling
from a population in which the model is appropriate) and a range from 0.00 (represents
overﬁt or over consistency with model-based expectations) to inﬁnity (represents misﬁt
or discord between observed data and model-based expectations). Items with weighted
mean square statistic larger than 1.4 were considered to exhibit unacceptable misﬁt. Note
that this guideline is suggested by Wright and Linacre (1994) for a unidimensional model

1 2:1[Z(k—Em)zﬂm]
k=0

mean square statistic conﬁguration, MSW = Z , m ] 7. Because that statistic

i=1 [2(k - Em )2 ”m

k

 

is slightly different from the one for a multidimensional model and because the null
distribution of the latter statistic is not well understood, this guideline can only be
considered a “best guess” at a reasonable criterion value.

Point-polyserial correlations between each item score and the total instrument
score were calculated to make sure that the rank ordering of participants on the item is
Similar to their rank ordering on the composite of the remaining items. Items with

correlations lower than .2 might not adequately measure the underlying construct.

49

Rating Scales
The third research question asked, “Did respondents use the rating seales in a
manner that is consistent with the author’s intent and with latent trait measurement
models?” This question further addressed the structural aspect of validity of the MCAM.
Because Conquest does not allow the user to Specify multiple rating scale models in the
same data (a condition existing in the MCAM data), data were ﬁtted to a partial credit
model (Equation 1). In this case, each item had a unique rating scale structure. The utility
of each rating scale was evaluated via two criteria. First, the unweighted mean-square ﬁt
index should be less than 2.0 (Linacre, 2002a). This index is calculated by averaging the
squared standardized residuals across all persons who responded using a particular
category for each item and then integrated over posterior ability distributions (similar to
that shown in Equation 2). This guideline ensures that the rating scales are used in the
way they were intended to be used. Second, the values of the rating scale thresholds
should increase with the categories of the rating scale within each item. This criterion
ensures that increasing amounts of the underlying variablein a respondent correspond to
increasing probabilities of the respondent being observed in higher categories of the
rating scale (Linacre, 2002a).
Reliability and Precision
As Messick (1995) indicated, the degree of correlations of the assessed tasks (i.e.,
items) with other tasks representing the construct or aspects of the construct offers
information regarding whether the score interpretation is not limited to the sample of
assessed tasks but broadly generalizable to the construct domain. Hence, the person

separation reliability and precision of the MCAM scores for each participant (research

50

question four) lent information concerning the generalizability aspect of validity for the
MCAM.

Person separation reliability coefﬁcients and precision indices (i.e., the logit
standard errors) were calculated for both subscales of the MCAM to evaluate the
reliability of the rank ordering of persons and the stability of the person measure
estimates (E.V. Smith, 2001). The person separation reliability coefﬁcient depicts the
consistency of rank orderings of parameter estimates for participants’ acculturation level
(0) over repeated sampling. This index is analogous to coefﬁcient alpha but based on

estimates of true and error variance derived from the MRCMLM. Speciﬁcally, it was

computed via the formula Rel, = V(6)/V(é) , where V(6) is the estimated variance of
the latent measures, obtained from V(6) = V09) —— MSE, (where MSEe is the mean error

variance of the participants’ acculturation estimates) and V09) is the variance of the

participants’ acculturation estimates. A reliability greater than .90 is ideal, but values as
low as .7 can be useful in research settings. Sixty-eight percent conﬁdence intervals
around each score estimates were plotted and compared with the standard deviations of
their respective score estimate distributions (i.e., MCAM-C or MCAM-A).

Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

The generalizability aspect of validity is not limited to reliability and precision.
Whether the MCAM items exhibit evidence of measurement bias (research question ﬁve)
also addresses the generalizability aspect of validity. Items were examined for potential
bias using differential item functioning (DIF) procedures to detect whether respondents in
different demographic groups who have the same levels of acculturation have different

probabilities of answering a particular item in a certain way. Speciﬁcally, two

51

demographic variables, gender and country of birth (COB, i.e., American-born Chinese
participants [ABC] vs. native-born Chinese participants [NBC]), were examined for DIF.

Item responses for each comparison were scaled using an extension of the

 

7r .
MRCMLM, LN[ ’ J: (9,, -c3: —T,, - 7g —I,.g , where yg represents the average acculturation
7r

x-l
measure for group g and 1,8 represents the deviation of the item calibration of item i for
group g from its overall calibration, (2. As would be the case in multiple regression, the
inclusion of the 78 term in this model removes the inﬂuence of group differences from the
interpretation of the remaining terms in the model. Hence, rig can be interpreted as the
difference between item calibrations for each group, once any group differences in levels
of acculturation have been removed. Therefore, we would expect rig to deviate from up
by a magnitude attributable to random sampling if the true group-level item difﬁculties
are equal.

To test the null hypothesis that rig = zig', a Wald statistic was created by dividing

the difference of Its - rig: by the pooled standard error of those parameter estimates (i.e.,

 

2 2
\lSEng +SE7¥ ) (Raju, 1990). A Bonferroni adjustment (p < .05/52 = .00096, Clauser &

Mazor, 1998) was applied to the statistical test to correct for the fact that 52 comparisons
were being made. If an item exhibited statistically signiﬁcant DIF, then the effect size of
an item’s difﬁculty between the two groups were then computed for each item via the

SAI index, where SAI = rig - rig! (Raju, 1990). According to Draba (1977), absolute values

of SAI that are greater than 0.50 constitute meaningfully large effect Sizes. The author

52

expected that men and women would not exhibit differences in their responses but ABC
and NBC would exhibit difference in their responses on the MCAM.
Item Endorsabilities across Acculturation Domains

Research question six also address the structural aspect of validity for the
MCAM: Were the patterns of the means across various acculturation domains consistent
with the developmental model of acculturation? Item endorsability for each item was
calculated and grouped based on the acculturation domain to which each item belonged.
The relative locations of the groups of the items that fall into these domains on the
underlying continuum were compared to a priori expectations based on the
developmental theory of acculturation. These expectations were explained earlier and
illustrated in Figure 5.

External Aspect of Validity

From the perspective of external validation, the relationships between the MCAM
scores, several demographic variables, and other constructs were examined according to
theoretical expectations described in the external model. These analyses relate to research
question seven: Did MCAM respondent measures exhibit patterns across demographic
groups that are consistent with the external model?
Demographic Variables

For research questions 7.1—7.3, relationships between MCAM scores and
generational status (GS), length of residence in the US. (LR), age of immigration (AOI),
mobility status (MB, i.e., permanent, temporary, or undecided), geographic location (GL,
i.e., regions in the US.) urbanity (U, i.e., urban, suburban, and rural), and location of

majority of education received (LE, i.e., in the US. or in their native country) were

53

investigated. Refer to Table A6 for the research questions, hypotheses, and proposed
analyses associated with these demographic variables. The following describes the details
of the analyses.

Generational status (GS), length of residence in the US. (LR), and age of
immigration (A01). Plots of these three demographic variables (GS, LR, and A01)
against the MCAM logit scores were created to determine whether the relationships
between the demographic variables and the MCAM logit scores were linear. Appendix M
displays these plots. The plots appeared to indicate that there were relationships between
each demographic variable and each MCAM subscale score and the relationships
appeared to be linear. Hence, Pearson’s correlations were performed to see if the
relationships were statistically signiﬁcant. Note that for LR and A01, only NBC’S data
were included in the analyses because the related research questions were speciﬁcally
related to NBC only.

Mobility (MB), geographical location (GL), urbanity (U), and location of
majority of education received (LE). For research questions 7,447.7, a graph of group
means on the MCAM subscale scores for each grouping variable (i.e., MB, GL, U, and
LE) was investigated to see whether different groups scored differently on the MCAM. A
MANCOVA with repeated-measures design was conducted to examine whether the
differences on the MCAM subscale scores were signiﬁcant. Correlations between the
MCAM subscale scores and several demographic variables (age, gender, country of birth
[COB], education level, location of majority of education received [LE], and income)
were computed to detect potential covariates. Pearson’s correlations were computed for

age, gender, LE, and COB whereas Spearman’s rank-order correlations were computed

54

for education level and income. Due to the number of intercorrelations, a Bonferroni-
corrected alpha of .004 (.05/ 12 = .004) was used to indicate statistical signiﬁcance.
Covariates were then entered in the MAN COVA model.
The MCAM and the SL-ASIA

For research question 8.1, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to
evaluate whether the MCAM scores can predict SL-ASIA scores. The intercorrelations
between several demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, country of birth [COB],
education level, and LE) and the scores of SL-ASIA were ﬁrst obtained to detect
potential covariates. COB (US-born or foreign-bom), education level (below graduate
degree or above graduate degree), and LE (in the US. or in their home country) were
coded as dummy variables. Due to the number of intercorrelations, a Bonferroni-
corrected alpha of .01 (.05/5 = .01) was used to indicate statistical signiﬁcance. Observed
covariates were entered in the regression model at the ﬁrst step simultaneously as
predictors so their contributions to the variances of the SL-ASIA scores were controlled
for. The MCAM-C and MCAM-A scores were entered Simultaneously as predictors at
the second step.
The MCAM and Other Constructs

Ethnic identity (E1). For research question 8.2, a plot of group means on the
MCAM subscale scores was created and examined to see whether groups with different
ethnic identity scored differently on the MCAM. A MAN COVA was then conducted to
examine whether the difference was signiﬁcant. Correlations between the MCAM

subscale scores and several demographic variables (age, gender, COB, education level,

55

LE, and income) were computed to detect potential covariates, a Bonferroni-corrected
alpha of .008 was used to indicate statistical signiﬁcance.

Psychological well-being (PWB). For research question 8.3, a plot of group means
on the psychological well-being (PWB) measures was created and examined to see
whether groups that used different acculturation approaches scored differently on the
MCAM. A MANCOVA was then conducted to examine whether the difference was
signiﬁcant. PWB was measured by the life satisfaction item on the demographics
questionnaire and the HSC. Each participant was categorized into the integrative,
separation, marginalization, or assimilation group according to his or her response pattern
to both MCAM subscales. As explained above, a score of 3 was conceptualized as the
midpoint on each cultural dimension and thus used as the cut-off score. Hence,
participants who scored higher than 3 on both subscales were placed in the integrative
group; participants who scored higher than 3 on the MCAM-C subscale but lower than 3
on the MCAM-A subscale were placed in the separation group; participants who scored
lower than 3 on both subscales were placed in the marginalization group; and participants
who scored lower than 3 on the MCAM-C subscale but higher than 3 on the MCAM-A
subscale were placed in the assimilation group. Correlations between the PWB measures
and several demographic variables (age, gender, country of birth [COB], education level,
location of majority of education received [LE], and income) were computed to detect
potential covariates, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .008 (.05/6 = .008) was used to
indicate statistical signiﬁcance.

Attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help (A TSPPH). For research

question 8.4, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether MCAM

56

scores can predict respondents’ ATSPPH. The intercorrelations between several
demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, country of birth [COB], education level, and
location of majority of education received [LE]) and the scores of the ATSPPHS were
ﬁrst obtained to detect potential covariates. COB (U.S.-bom or foreign-bom), education
level (below graduate degree or above graduate degree), and LE (in the US. or in their
home country) were coded as dummy variables. Due to the number of intercorrelations, a
Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .01 (.05/5 = .01) was used to indicate statistical
Signiﬁcance. Observed covariates were entered in the regression model at the ﬁrst step
simultaneously as predictors so their contributions to the variances of the ATSPPHS
scores were controlled for. The MCAM-C and MCAM-A scores were entered

simultaneously as predictors at the second step.

57

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Dimensionality

The model-based evaluation of dimensionality (research question one) provided
information regarding the structural aspect of validity. Table A12 displays the results of
the model-based evaluation of dimensionality. The ﬁnal column (PCCAIC) of the ﬁrst six
rows of data in this table reveals that the bidimensional model exhibited the greatest
explanatory power for the observed data. Recall that smaller values of the proportionality
constant indicate better ﬁt of the observed data to the structural model in question.
Although the two cultures model did not have the smallest value for the deviance
statistic, that model accounts for more variance per parameter estimated than any of the
remaining models.

Although the two-culturebidimensional model had the smallest PCCAIC, ﬁve items
exhibited misﬁt when data was scaled to this model. Table A13 lists these items with
their mean square weighted ﬁt indices. Four of these items are negative-worded items and
are corresponding items on the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales. Although the other
pair of negative-worded item (i.e., item 24 on both subscales: I have difﬁculty accepting
beliefs held by Chinese/Americans) did not exhibit misﬁt, their mean square weighted ﬁt
indices were close to the cut-off value 1.4 (1.2 and 1.35, respectively). These cases of
misﬁt might be a result of respondents’ carelessness (R. M. Smith, 2000) since
negatively-worded items require respondents some extra mental effort to reverse the
wording of the item. Alternatively, these misﬁts might suggest that these items might not
measure what they were intended to measure. These negatively-worded items were also

problematic in the pilot study. Hence, it appeared that removing these items from the

58

instrument would make the instrument more internally consistent. The distribution of the
items (see Appendix N) after their removal, however, still roughly matches the weight of
each domain and process as described in the test blueprint.

The model-based evaluation of dimensionality was replicated for all the models
with the negatively-worded items removed. Table A14 displays the results of this
replicated model-based evaluation of dimensionality. The table shows the decrease in the
G) while the additional parameters included in each of the multidimensional models were
accounting for progressivelymore of the observed variability. The PCCAIC of the
bidimensional (two cultures) model was the smallest, indicating that, parameter-for-
parameter, this model explained more of the observed variability. In addition, the latent
trait correlation between the MCAM-A and MCAM-C was a moderate -.60, indicating
that it was not redundant to scale the data using the bidimensional model. The remaining
analyses were performed using this model with the negatively-worded items removed
from the analyses. The items in the MCAM were renumbered and the result of the
renumbering is represented in Appendix 0.

Fit

The examination of the ﬁt indices and item-total correlation (research question
two) provided information regarding the content aspect of validity for the MCAM. Two
items (3.8%) exhibited misﬁt and 11 items (21.2%) exhibited low item-total correlations.
Table A15 summarizes these items’ estimated difficulty, weighted mean square statistics
and item-total correlations. The last row of this stable presents the means of item
difﬁculty and weighted mean square statistics, and item-total correlations for all the items

in the MCAM. The weighted mean square statistic for item 12 in the MCAM-C subscale

59

is only slightly larger than the 1.4 cut-off value and has an acceptable item-total
correlation. The 11 items that exhibited low item-total correlations all belong to the
MCAM-A subscale. As indicated in Table A15, except for item 23 and 24 in the MCAM-
A subscale, the estimated difﬁculty for each of the remaining 9 items was either much
higher or lower than the mean. This might suggest that the low item-total correlations
were due to range restriction. Five of these items tap the language domain and their
correlations are only slightly below the .2 cut-off value. Items 23 and 24, which are
related to cross-racial marriage, exhibited correlations close to zero. Item 25 in the
MCAM-A subscale appears to be the somewhat problematic as it exhibited both misﬁt
and low item-total correlation.
Rating Scales

The examination of whether therating scales were used by the respondents the
. way they were supposed to be used (research questidn three) yielded information
regarding the structural aspect of validity. The unweighted mean-square ﬁt indices for
most rating scales were less than 2.0. Only two items (items 24 and 25 in the MCAM-A
subscale) exhibited unweighted mean-square ﬁt indices greater than 2.0 at step three
calibration. This suggested that respondents might not use categories 3 and 4 of these
items in the way that were intended. Inspection of the data revealed that respondents
seemed to overuse category 3 while underusing category 4 of these items. The mean
percentages of respondents using categories 3 and 4 across 52 items were 26.38% and
26.16%—the standard deviations of these percentages across items equal 11.97 and 8.11,
respectively. However, for item 24, the percentage of the respondents who chose

category 3 was more than two deviations from the mean (61.37%) while the percentage

60

of the respondents who chose category 4 was less than two deviations form the mean
(5.13%). Similarly, for item 25, almost half of the respondents chose category 3 (48.03%)
while only 17.26% of the respondents chose category 4. An examination of the
corresponding items in the MCAM-C subscale revealed similar patterns—category 3
seemed to be overused. Both items also exhibited low item-total correlations as showed
in Table A15.

Ten items exhibited step calibration disordering. Tables 16, 17, and 18 display
those items, belong to the ability, frequency, and agreeability rating scales, respectively.
The response distributions for items 1 and82 in the. MCAM-C subscale and item 4 in the
MCAM-A subscale were bimodal, which indicated that these items seemed to ask
respondents to make more distinctions than they could really make. Item 4 in the
MCAM-A subscale also showed low item-total correlation (see Table A15). Further
' examination of the distribution of responses on each category for ABC and NBC
separately revealed that ABC and NBC exhibited different patterns in their responses to
the language proﬁciency items (i.e., items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) on both subscales. Tables 19
and 20 show the comparison of ABC’s and NBC’S response distributions across the
rating scale categories on the Chinese and English items, respectively. Speciﬁcally, on all
the Chinese language items, more than 70% of the‘NBC respondents chose categories 4
and 5. However, more than 70% of the ABC respondents chose categories 1 and 2 on C1
and C2. In contrast, on the English language items, NBC’S responses spread out across
categories 3 to 5 whereas close to 80% of the ABC respondents chose category 5. This

differential pattern between NBC and ABC might contribute to the bimodal distributions.

61

The distributions for the other items that exhibited step calibration disordering
were unimodal as desired. For items 18 and 23 in the MCAM-C subscale, category 1 and
2 seemed to be underused by the respondents. On the contrary, the category 5 for items
23 and 24 in the MCAM-A subscale seemed to be underused by the respondents. This
might also explain the low item-total correlations exhibited by items 23 and 24 (see Table
A15).

There was no observation in category 1 and 2 for item 1, and in category 1 for
items 2, 3, and 7 in the MCAM-A subscale. All of these items asked about respondents’
English proﬁciency and usage. Since the instrument was in English and respondents all
resided in the U.S., these results were expected rather-than a reﬂection of the invalidity of

the rating scales. Nevertheless, further investigation witha Chinese version of the

instrument and subjects with limited English proﬁciency might be necessary to determine ' '

this assertion.
Reliability and Precision"

The person separation reliability and precisiOn of the MCAM scores for each
participant (research question four) provided information concerning the generalizability
aspect of validity for the MCAM. The observed person separation reliability coefﬁcients
were .93 for both the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales. Both reliability indices were
very high indicating that both subscales are highly internally consistent. Table A21
displays the descriptive statistics of participants’ acculturation estimates and the
reliability of separation indices for both the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales.

Figures 7 and 8 plot the 68% conﬁdence bands for each score estimate for the

MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales, respectively. As expected, the conﬁdence intervals

62

tended to be greater for individual whose score estimates were at extremes than those
whose score estimates were in the middle range. The standard errors ranged from 0.04 to
0.38 and from 0.10 to 0.39 logits for the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales,
respectively. The width of the conﬁdence bands ranged from 0.08 to 0.78 and from 0.22
to 0.80 logits, respectively. The ratios of the standard errors and their respective standard
deviations of the score estimate distributions (i.e., 0.83 for the MCAM-C and 0.93 for the
MCAM-A subscales), ranged ﬁom 0.12 to 0.47 with a mean of 0.29 logits for the
MCAM-C subscale and from 0.11 to 0.42 with a mean of 0.25 logits for the MCAM-A.
The magnitude of the precision of the measures within individuals was only about one-
fourth of the dispersion of the measures across individuals, indicating adequate precision
of the MCAM measures in depicting participants’ true acculturation level (Smith, 2001).
Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

The generalizability aspect of validity was further evaluated by examining
whether the MCAM items exhibit evidence of measurement bias. Items were examined
for potential bias using differential item functioning (DIF) procedures to detect whether
respondents in different demographic groups who have the same levels of acculturation
have different probabilities of answering a particular item in a certain way (research
question ﬁve). Gender and country of birth were the demographic variables examined. It
was expected that men and women would not exhibit differences in their responses, but
ABC and NBC would exhibit differences in their responses on the MCAM.

Gender
Ten items (19%) exhibited statistically signiﬁcant DIF when comparing item

difﬁculties for female and male participants. However, none of the effect sizes were

63

greater than 0.5. Table A22 presents the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and
maximum of the Wald statistics and the SAI indices for the gender comparisons.
Country of Birth (COB)

Almost all of the items exhibited statistically signiﬁcant DIF when comparing
item difﬁculties for ABC and NBC participants. Only ﬁve items (10%) did not exhibit
DIF, including items 12, 17, 18, and 19 on the MCAM-C subscale and item 24 on the
MCAM-A subscale. Among the items that exhibited statistically signiﬁcant DIF, nine did
not have an absolute effect size greater than 0.5. In sum, 38 (73%) items exhibited
statistically signiﬁcant DIF as well as an absolute effect size greater than 0.5. Table A23
presents the Wald statistic and the absolute value of SAI for the items that exhibited
statistically signiﬁcant and meaningfully large DIF. The items that belong to the MCAM-
C subscale were consistently easier for NBC to endorse. The items that belong to the
MCAM-A subscale were also consistently easier for ABC to endorse.

The correlation between the item parameters from a unidimensional scaling of the
two groups is very low (r = .16), indicating that the scale probably measures a different
construct in the two groups. In order to further determine whether and how differential
dimensionality exists across NBC and ABC, principal component analyses (PCA) of the
residuals from a unidimensional scaling of the data for each of these two groups were
performed using Winsteps (Linacre, 1998, 2002b). Item loadings on the residual
components for these two groups were examined to determine whether and how the latent
structure of the instrument differed between the groups. Items with absolute loadings

greater than .40 were considered to load on a particular component (Stevens, 1996).

64

The results of the PCA indicated that the ﬁrst two residual components were
reliable for interpretation (Stevens, 1996). Table A24 summarizes the loadings of each
item on the ﬁrst two residual components for the two groups. It Shows that differences
indeed existed in the ways that the items correlate between the two groups once the
shared variance among the items was taken into account. Speciﬁcally, although 37 of the
items exhibited the same trends on the ﬁrst residual component, 15 of the items exhibited
differential dimensionality on this particular component. While NBC deﬁned this
component with a positive loading on item 15 on the MCAM-A subscale and negative
loadings on items 11, 13, 18, 20, 22—24, and 26 on the MCAM-C subscale, ABC deﬁned
this component with positive loadings on items 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 on the MCAM-
A subscale and a negative loading on item 13 on the MCAM-C subscale. Similarly, for
the second residual component, although 35 items exhibited the same trends, 17 items
exhibited differential dimensionality. While NBC deﬁned this component with positive
loadings on items 1—4 and negative loadings on items 11 and 12 on the MCAM-C
subscale, ABC deﬁned this component with negative loadings on items 17 and 20 on the
MCAM-C subscale and items 1—4 and 7 on the MCAM-A subscale and positive loadings
on items 19, 20, 22, and 25 on the MCAM-A subscale. These loadings deﬁne how the
groups rated the items in different ways, implying that different dimensional
structures were being deﬁned by the two groups.

An investigation of the item loadings of the ﬁrst residual components revealed
that the ﬁrst factors were bipolar for both NBC and ABC. Items that exhibited high
positive loadings were associated with involvement in American culture whereas items

that exhibited high negative loadings were associated with maintenance of Chinese

65

culture. However, there was distinct difference between the two groups on items that did
not exhibit high loadings on the ﬁrst factors. For NBC, this factor did not capture the
preference between viewing an American and a Chinese person as a role model, between
collectivism and individualism, and between American and Chinese food. Additionally,
this factor captured low consumption of Chinese food at home and high consumption of
American food outside, but not high consumption of American food at home and low
consumption of Chinese food outside. Similarly, this component captured oppositions on
Chinese customs, Chinese values, and same—ethnicity marriage for the next generation,
but did not capture endorsements on American customs, American values, and interethnic
marriage for the next generation. For ABC, the ﬁrst component also did not capture the
preference between collectivism and individualism. While this factor captured
endorsements on high consumption and an appeal of American food, social enjoyment
with Americans, viewing an American as a role model, an understanding and appeal for
the American culture and customs, an agreement with American values, and an appeal for
interethnic marriage, it did not capture oppositions on the respective items in the MCAM-
C subscale. On the other hand, ABC deﬁned this factor with low participation in Chinese
holidays but their participation in American holidays was irrelevant.

An investigation of the item loadings of the second residual components revealed
that NBC and ABC captured different things in this component. For NBC, the second
component seemed to capture Chinese language proﬁciency, willingness for interethnic
marriage, low consumption of Chinese food, and low enjoyment in associating with
Chinese. On the other hand, for ABC, the second component appeared to capture the

preference of American customs to Chinese customs, low English proﬁciency and usage,

66

dislikes of Chinese food and associations with Chinese, and endorsements on viewing an
American as a role model, American values, interethnic marriage, and individualism.

In summary, it seemed that the primary differences between the dimensionality of
the measures exhibited by the NBC and ABC groups were that a) while NBC’S
acculturation depended highly on their proﬁciency in Chinese language, ABC’s
acculturation depended highly on their low proﬁciency and usage of English; b) while
NBC deﬁned the measure by their low consumption of Chinese food and high
consumption of American food only when dining out and their appeal to Chinese or
American food was irrelevant, ABC deﬁned the measure by their high consumption of
American food and an appeal of American over Chinese food; c) while NBC’S preference
of interethnic to same-ethnicity marriage (as seen on a single continuum) was relevant,
ABC’s inclination for interethnic marriage but not opposition for same-ethnic marriage
was important; d) while NBC’s opposition toward Chinese values provided information
about their acculturation, ABC’s endorsement toward American values was, in contrast,
salient for their acculturation; e) the ethnic background of a role model was irrelevant for
NBC but an appeal for an American person as a role model was important for ABC; f)
only a dislike of Chinese customs but not an appeal of American customs was important
for NBC whereas both dislike of Chinese customs and like of American customs were
important for ABC; ﬁnally, g) while collectivism and individualism did not help deﬁne
NBC’S acculturation, individualism alone did help deﬁne ABC’s acculturation.

Item Endorsabilities across Acculturation Domains
In order to further examine the structural aspect of validity, the patterns of the

means across various acculturation domains were compared with the developmental

67

model of acculturation (research question six). Figures 9 and 10 display the relative
endorsabilities of items belonging to each of the six acculturation domains for NBC on
the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales, respectively. Figures 11 and 12 display the same
information for ABC. Table A25 presents the descriptive statistics of these endorsabilty
estimates. Generally, the rank ordering of the means was consistent with substantive
expectations with a few mismatches. As expected, NBC found the MCAM-A items in the
language domain the easiest to endorse, followed by those in the leisure activity, ethnic
interaction, cultural participation, and food domains, and those in the values domain were
the most difﬁcult to endorse. In the MCAM-C subscale, NBC found the items in the
language and food domains the easiest to endorse and the items in the leisure activity,
cultural participation, and ethnic interaction domains somewhat more difﬁcult to endorse.
However, NBC found the items in the values domain more difﬁcult to endorse than we
expected. For ABC on the MCAM-A subscale, ABC found the items in the language,
food, cultural participation, leisure activity, and ethnic interaction domains easier to
endorse than those in the values domain. The items in the language and leisure activity
domains were the easiest for ABC to endorse while the endorsabilities of the items in the
food, cultural participation, and ethnic interaction domains were in the intermediate
range. Also as expected, ABC found the MCAM-C items in the food and ethnic
interaction domains the easiest to endorse, followed by those in the values domain, then
those in the leisure activity domain. Contrary to what was expected, ABC found the items
in the cultural participation domain easier (in the intermediate range) to endorse and
those in the language domain more difﬁcult (in the signiﬁcant range) to endorse than

expected, respectively.

68

External Aspect of Validity

From the perspective external validation, the relationships between the MCAM
scores, several demographic variables, and other constructs were examined according to
theoretical expectations described in the external model.

The Relationships between the MCAM and Demographic Variables
Generational Status (GS), Length of Residence in the US. (LR), and Age of Immigration
(A01)

First, the study hypothesized that generational status would negatively correlate
with MCAM-C and positively correlate with MCAM-A. As expected, generational status
was signiﬁcantly negatively related to MCAM-C (r = -.51, p < .001, r2 = .26) and
positively related to MCAM-A (r = .54, p < .001, r2 = .29) with large effect sizes. Second,
the study hypothesized that NBC’S length of residence in the US. would positively relate
to their MCAM-A scores and their age of immigration would positively relate to their
MCAM-C scores but negatively relate to their MCAM-A scores. Table A26 Shows the
correlation matrix between NBC’s scores on both subscales of the MCAM and their
length of residence in the US. and age of immigration. The relationships between NBC’S
length of residence in the U.S., age of immigration, and MCAM scores were all
statistically signiﬁcant in the expected direction with large effect sizes, thus provided
additional evidence supporting the external aspect of validity for the MCAM.

Mobility (MB), Geographical Location (GL), Urbanity (U), and Location of Majority of
Education Received (LE)
Third, plots of group means on the MCAM subscales for each of the following

grouping variables were created: mobility (i.e., their stay in the US. is permanent,

69

temporary, or undecided), geographical location (i.e., U.S. regions), urbanity (i.e., urban,
suburban, or rural), and location of the majority of their education (i.e., LE, in the US. or
in their home countries). These plots were examined to see if group differences existed
and matched with respective hypotheses. A multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) with repeated-measures design for each variable was conducted to
examine whether the difference was statistically signiﬁcant. Table A27 shows the group
means and standard deviations of the MCAM subscale scores for each between-subject
demographic variable. Table A28 shows the intercorrelations between the MCAM
subscale scores and several demographic variables (age, gender, COB, education level,
LE, and income). COB, education level, LE, and income were signiﬁcantly related to the
MCAM scores and thus were entered in the MANCOVA models as covariates except for
the model with LE as the between-subject variable. This study hypothesized that groups
with different levels on each of the aforementioned demographic variables would exhibit
different patterns on thetwo MCAM subscales. In other words, the MCAM-by-
demographic variable interaction effect would be signiﬁcant.

Mobility (MB). Figure 13 plots the group means of the two MCAM subscales
across the three MB groups. It is clear from Figure 13 that the patterns of the MB group
means on the MCAM subscales were consistent with the hypotheses. On the MCAM-C
subscale, the permanent group scored the lowest, followed by the undecided group, and
the temporary group scored the highest. On the MCAM-A subscale, the MB groups
exhibited an exactly inverse pattern: the permanent group scored the highest, followed by
the undecided group, and the temporary group scored the lowest. Table A29 summarizes

the results of the follow-up MANCOVA with MB as the between-subjects variable and

70

the MCAM subscales as the repeated measures. The MCAM-by-MB interaction effect
was signiﬁcant (Wilks’ Lambda = F [2, 421] = 13.53, p < .001, n2 = .06) and conﬁrmed
that individuals of different levels of mobility exhibited different patterns on the two
MCAM subscales.

Geographic Location (GL). Figure 14 plots the group means of the two MCAM
subscales across the ﬁve GL groups: northeast, southeast, midwest, southwest, and west.
It appeared the group differences were small on both subscales. Table A30 summarizes
the results of the follow-up MANCOVA with GL as the between-subjects variable. The
MCAM—by—GL interaction effect (Wilks’ Lambda = F [4, 436] = 1.93, p = .10, 112 = .02)
was not signiﬁcant, indicating that people living in different regions of the US did not
exhibit different patterns on the two MCAM subscales.

Urbanity (U). Figure 15 plots the group means of the two MCAM subscales
across the three urbanity groups-z urban, suburban, and rural. It appeared that on the
MCAM-C subscale, the group differences were small whereas on the MCAM-A
subscale, the rural group scored much lower than the other two groups. Table A31
summarizes the results of the follow-up MANCOVA with U as the between-subjects
variable. The MCAM-by—U interaction effect (Wilks’ Lambda = F [2, 429] = 2.09, p =
.13, n2 = .01) was not signiﬁcant after the covariates were controlled for; indicating that
individuals living in different urbanity neighborhoods did not exhibit different patterns
on the MCAM.

Location of Majority of Education Received (LE). Figure 16 plots the group
means of the two MCAM subscales across the two LE groups. It is clear from Figure 16

that the patterns of the LE group means on the MCAM subscales were consistent with the

71

hypotheses. On the MCAM-C subscale, the US. group scored lower than the home
country group; in contrast, on the MCAM-A subscale, the US. group scored higher than
the home country group. Table A32 summarizes the results of the MANCOVA with LE
as the between-subjects variable. The MCAM—by—LE interaction effect was signiﬁcant
with a moderate effect size (Wilks’ Lambda = F [1, 440] = 89.82, p < .001, 112 = .17).
This indicated that people who received the majority of their education in the US.
exhibited different patterns on the two MCAM subscales from people who received the
majority of their education in their' heme countries.

The Relationship between the MCAM and the SL-ASIA

The relationship between the MCAM and the SL-ASIA scores was examined via
a multiple regression analysis. This study hypothesized that the MCAM scores would be
predictive of SL-ASIA scores. TableA33 presents the intercorrelations between several
demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, COB, education level, and LE) and the scores of
SL-ASIA. The observed covariates, 'COB, education level, and LE were entered in the
regression model at the ﬁrst step as predictors so their contributions to the variances of
the SL-ASIA scores were controlled for. MCAM-C and MCAM-A were entered
simultaneously as predictors at the second step.

Table A34 summarizes the multiple regression analysis for variables predicting
the SL-ASIA scores. The results suggested that the ﬁve-variable regression model is
statistically signiﬁcantly predictive [F (5, 545) = 625.99, p < .001] of the scores of the
SL-ASIA. The result indicated that the regression model accounted for approximately

85% of the variance of the SL-ASIA, and the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A

72

collaboratively added 19% of incremental variance when the covariates were controlled
for, and thus supported the MCAM’S external aspect of validity.

Examinations of the t tests on each beta weight showed that the MCAM-C [B
= -.31, t (1, 545) = -l6.26,p < .001] and the MCAM-A [B = .21, t (1, 545)=11.85,p <
.001] each made signiﬁcant contribution. The correlations among the predictors were all
below .66 and the largest condition index was 5.26, indicating no concern of
multicollinearity.

The Relationships between the MCAM and Other Constructs
Ethnic Identity (E1)

Figure 17 plots the group means of the two MCAM subscales across the three EI
groups. It is clear from Figure 17 that the patterns of the E1 group means on the MCAM
subscales were consistent with the hypotheses. On the MCAM-C subscale, the American-
identiﬁed group scored the lowest, followed by the Chinese-American-identiﬁed group,
and the Chinese-identiﬁed group scored the highest. On the MCAM-A subscale, the El
groups exhibited an exactly inverse pattern: the American-identiﬁed group scored the
highest, followed by the Chinese-American-identiﬁed group, and the Chinese-identiﬁed
group scored the lowest.

A follow-up MANCOVA with repeated-measures design was conducted to
examine whether the difference was signiﬁcant. Table A35 shows the group means and
standard deviations of the MCAM subscale scores across different EI groups (Chinese-
identiﬁed, Chinese-American-identiﬁed, and American-identiﬁed). COB, education
level, LE, and income were signiﬁcantly related to the MCAM scores thus were entered

in the MANCOVA models as covariates. Table A36 summarizes the results of the

73

MANCOVA. The MCAM—by—EI interaction effect was signiﬁcant (Wilks’ Lambda = F
[2, 438] = 40.44, p < .001, n2 = .16) with a moderate effect size. This indicated that
people of different EI exhibited different patterns on the two MCAM subscales.
Psychological Well-Being (P WB)

Figure 18 plots the group means of the two PWB measures across the three
ACCA groups. None of the respondents was categorized in the marginalization group. It
appeared that although the integrative group exhibited better psychological well-being
(i.e., high life satisfaction and low symptoms) than the separation group, it did not report
a better psychological well-being than the assimilation group. Additionally, the ACCA
groups seemed to differ a greater deal on the life Satisfaction item than on the HSC.

A MANCOVA with repeated—measures design was conducted to examine
whether groups using different acculturation approaches. (ACCA) exhibited Signiﬁcant
different patterns on the PWB measures (life satisfaction-and HSC). Table A37 shows the
group means and standard deviations of the PWB measures across different ACCA
groups (integrative, separation, and assimilation). Table A38 presents the
intercorrelations between several demographic variables and the PWB measures. Age,
COB, education level, LE, and income were signiﬁcantly related to either one or both of
the PWB measures, and thus were entered into the MANCOVA models as covariates.

Table A39 summarizes the results of the MANCOVA. The PWB—by—ACCA
interaction effect was signiﬁcant (Wilks’ Lambda = F [2, 415] = 10.57, p < .001, n2 =
.05). This indicated that groups that used different acculturation approaches exhibited
different patterns on the two PWB measures after the covariates were controlled for. A

follow-up univariate test indicated that the ACCA main effects were signiﬁcant for both

74

PWB measures after the covariates’ contributions were controlled for: life satisfaction, F
(2, 415) = 8.89,p < .001 (112 = .04); HSC, F(2, 415) = 5.18,p < .01 (112 = .02).

Post hoc pairwise comparisons of group means when the covariates were
controlled for revealed that on the life satisfaction item, there was a difference between
the integrative and the separation group (d = .58, p < .001). However, there was no
difference on the life satisfaction item for the integrative versus assimilation (d = .16, p
=.87) or the separation versus assimilation (d = -.43, p = .09) comparisons. Because the
number of the comparisons was four, a Bonferroni-correlated alpha of .01 (0.05/4 = .01)
was used to indicate statistical Signiﬁcance. On the HSC, a signiﬁcant difference was
observed for the separation versus assimilation (d = .28, p < .01) comparison while no
difference was observed for the other comparisons: integrative versus separation (d
= -.19, p = .02) and integrative versus assimilation (d = .10, p = .57).

Attitudes toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help (A TSPPH)

A multiple regression analysis was performed to examine whether the MCAM
scores were predictive of respondents’ ATSPPH. Table A40 presents the correlations
between the scores on the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help
Scale (ATSPPHS) and several demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, COB, education
level, and LE). The observed covariates, age, gender, education level, and LE were
entered in the regression model at the ﬁrst step as predictors so their contributions to the
variances of the ATSPPHS scores were controlled for. The MCAM—C and MCAM-A
measures were entered simultaneously as predictors at the second step.

Table A41 summarizes the multiple regression analysis for variables predicting

the ATSPPHS scores. The results suggested that a six-variable regression model is

75

V statistically signiﬁcantly predictive [F (6, 556) = 11.25, p < .001] of the scores of the
ATSPPHS. The results indicated that the regression model accounted for approximately
8% of the variance of the ATSPPHS scores, and the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A
collaboratively added 3% of incremental variance when the covariates were controlled
for, and thus further supported the external aspect of validity for the MCAM.
Examinations of the t tests on each beta weight showed that the MCAM-C [B = -.12, t (l ,
564) = -2.l7, p < .05] and the MCAM-A [B = .12, t (1, 564) = 2.04, p < .05] each made
signiﬁcant contribution. The correlations among the predictors were all below .66 and the
largest condition index was 12.5, indicating no concern of multicollinearity.

In sum, the investigations related to the relationships between the MCAM and
some demographic variables generated encouraging results that yielded external
validation for the MCAM. Generational status was signiﬁcantly related to the MCAM
scores in the expected directions with large effect Sizes; The relationships between.
NBC’S LR, A01, and their MCAM scores were also consistent with hypotheses. Groups
of different MB and LE exhibited different patterns on the two MCAM subscales.
Investigations of the plot of the group means conﬁrmed that the patterns matched with
the study’s hypotheses. However, this study failed to ﬁnd proposed group differences on
the MCAM scores for groups living in different GL and U.

A multiple regression analysis revealed that the MCAM scores were Signiﬁcantly
predictive of the SL-ASIA scores. In fact, the MCAM scores explained an additional
20% of the variances of the SL-ASIA after the covariates’ contributions were taken into
account, thus lending support for the external aspect of validity for the MCAM. In terms

of the relationships between the MCAM and other constructs (i.e., EI, PWB, and

76

ATSPPH) the results were consistent with the study’s expectations. Groups of different
E1 exhibited different patterns on the MCAM subscales and the patterns supported the
hypotheses. Groups that used different ACCA exhibited different patterns on the PWB
measures. However, although the integrative group exhibited signiﬁcantly better PWB
than the separation group, it did not exhibit signiﬁcantly better PWB than the assimilation
group. Finally, a multiple regression analysis indicated that the MCAM scores were
signiﬁcantly predictive of respondents’ ATSPPH andexplained an additional 3% of the

variances of the ATSPPH after the covariates were controlled for.

77

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Validity of the MCAM Measures

Table A42 summarizes the research questions, hypotheses, the corresponding
analyses and results, and the related aspects of validity supported. Overall, the MCAM
measures demonstrated strong validity in various aspects of validity (Messick, 1995).

The content aspect of validity for the MCAM measures was well-supported
because a) the item development procedures were theory-driven and b) most items
exhibited acceptable ﬁt to the MRCMLM and adequate item-total correlations. In terms
of supporting the structural aspect of validity for the MCAM measures, as expected, the
model-based evaluation of dimensionality conﬁrmed that the bidimensional model is the
most appropriate for these data. In addition, the rating scales for most items exhibited
acceptable unweighted mean-square ﬁt indices and appeared to be used by the
respondents in the way they were intended to be used (as expected by the MRCMLM).
This provided further support for the structural aspect of validity for the MCAM
measures. The structural aspect of validity of the MCAM measures was also supported by
the results that the relative endorsabilities of items belonging to the same acculturation
domains were generally consistent with the developmental model’s expectations. The
generalizibility aspect of validity for the MCAM measures was strongly supported by a)
the exceptional internal consistency and precision demonstrated by the MCAM measures
and b) the results indicating that differential item functioning (DIF) did not exist for men
and women. However, DIF did exist for NBC and ABC as predicted.

The external aspect of validity for the MCAM measures was also strongly

established by the fact that most results focusing on relationships between MCAM

78

measures and external variables were consistent with the study’s hypotheses.
Speciﬁcally, the variables of generational status, length of residence, and age of
immigration were found to be associated with the MCAM subscale scores in the expected
directions. Expected group differences were found in their response patterns on the
MCAM subscales for groups varied on mobility status (permanent, temporary, or
undecided), location of the majority of their education (in the US. or in their home
country), and ethnic identiﬁcation (Chinese-identiﬁed, Chinese-American-identiﬁed, and
American-identiﬁed). Moreover, the external aspect of validity for the MCAM measures
was also conﬁrmed by the predictive power of the MCAM measure for another
acculturation measure, the SL-ASIA. Finally, the external aspect of validity for the
MCAM measures was supported by the expected relationships between the construct of
acculturation and two other constructs (i.e., psychological well-being and attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help). Speciﬁcally, groups that used different
acculturation approaches (i.e., integrative, separation, and assimilation) were found to
exhibit different patterns on the psychological well-being measures and the integrative
group, as expected, exhibited better psychological well-being than the separation group.
The MCAM measures were also found to be predictive of respondents’ attitudes toward
seeking professional psychological help as hypothesized.

Two hypotheses that were related to the external aspect of validity were not
supported. Inconsistent with expectations, groups who lived in different geographical
locations (U.S. regions) and urbanity neighborhoods (urban, suburban, and rural) did not
score differently on both MCAM subscales. The lack of difference might reﬂect that the

levels (e.g., U.S. regions) of these demographic variables were too broad and thus unable

79

to detect the affect the environment might place on an individual’s acculturation. For
example, individuals living in the west region could vary a great deal in terms of their
acculturation level depending on whether they lived in the metropolitan areas such as Los
Angeles where Chinese community and goods are readily accessible or in a rural area in
Oregon. Similarly, individuals living in Denver and in New York city could both report
that they lived in an urban area. However, their accessibility to Chinese community and
goods differ a great deal. Therefore, it could be problematic to expect group differences
based on acculturation by US. regions or urbanity. Gong, Takeuchi, Agbayani-Siewert,
and Tacata (2003) identiﬁed acculturation group differences when they compared a San
Francisco sample with a Hawaiian sample. The reason that these authors were able to
ﬁnd group differences based on a geographical variable might be because their
geographical variable was speciﬁc enough to distinguish the two groups. Hence, in the
future, geographical variables that can clearly differentiate individuals in the population,
such as their proximity to Chinatown, might be better indicators of acculturation
differences across groups.
Implications
Dimensionality of A cculturation

The results of the conﬁrmatory factor analyses of the entire sample conﬁrmed the
hypothesis that the two-culture bidimensional model explained more variance in the data
and thus was the most appropriate model. Most importantly, these results provided sound
empirical evidence that acculturation should be viewed as a bidimensional rather than a
unidimensional construct. This is consistent with the recent theoretical conceptualization

of acculturation (Berry & Sam, 1996) that while one is learning and acquiring

80

knowledge, Skills, living styles, or values associated with a new culture, he or she is not
necessarily giving up his or her culture of origin. That is, the unidimensional perspective
that the two cultures exit on a Single continuum might not be appropriate because an
individual can manage the two cultures at the same time.

This result is consistent with the results of Ryder et al.’s (2000) study that the
bidimensional model appeared to be a superior model to the unidimensional model.
However, there were signiﬁcant methodological differences between Ryder et al.’s study
and the present study in supporting the bidimensional model. Ryder et al. supported the
bidimensional model by demonstrating that the Mainstream and the Heritage subscales of
the VIA showed distinctive patterns of correlations with external variables that they
studied, while the present study demonstrated that the bidimensional model explained
more variance in the data than the unidimensional model. Hence, it could be argued that
Ryder’s et al.’s conclusion only pertains to the particular external variables they
examined. On the other hand, in the present study, the superiority of the bidimensional
model over the unidimensional model was directly reﬂected in participants’ response
patterns on the MCAM.

A major difference between Ryder et al.’s study and the current study was the use
of the acculturation measure. Ryder et al. used the VIA whereas the present study used
the MCAM. The MCAM has several advantages over the VIA. First and foremost, the
MCAM was validated using a more comprehensive validation framework (Messick,
1995) but the VIA was validated based on three fragmented pieces of validity
information: internal consistency, concurrent validity with several demographic variables,

and factorial validity. Second, the domains that the VIA measured were not as

81

representative of the construct of acculturation as the MCAM. The VIA does not include
any language items despite the fact that the language domain has been considered as the
most important domain in the assessment of acculturation. Also, VIA does not include
any items related to the food domain. This omission could be problematic Since food is
closely embedded in cultures and appear to be an extremely difﬁcult domain to change
(as suggested by Kalcik [1985] and demonstrated by the current study).

Nevertheless, the VIA has two strengths that the MCAM does not have. First, the
VIA appears to be more orthogonal than the MCAM. Speciﬁcally, Ryder et al. found
much smaller correlations (.09— -.18) between the Mainstream and the Heritage subscale
of the VIA than the correlation (-.60) this study found between the MCAM-C and the
MCAM-A subscales. The VIA seems to demonstrated stronger evidence for the
conceptualization that acculturation involves two independent and orthogonal processes.
Second, the VIA is brief (20 items) and thus more efficient than the MCAM. It is also
important to note that the VIA was validated with a Canadian sample whereas the
MCAM was validated with a US sample. Also, the VIA was not targeted for a particular
ethnic group whereas the MCAM was targeted particularly to Chinese and Chinese
Americans.

Although both Ryder et al.’s (2000) study and the present study yielded evidence
supporting the bidimensional over the unidimensional model, Flannery, Reise, and Yu
(2001) produced different results. Speciﬁcally, Flannery et al. concluded that neither
model was superior. Similar to the present study, Flannery et al. found a moderate inverse

association (r = -.55) between the Asian-focused subscale (AAI-A) and the Euro-focused

82

subscale (AAI-E) of the AAI. The authors concluded that this result could support either
the bidimensional or the unidimensional model.

Other reasons that might also explain the inconsistency include the following.
First, F lannery et a1. (2001) used a different bidimensional acculturation measure—the
Asian American Acculturation Inventory (AAI, Flannery, 1996), which demonstrated
only a modest internal consistency (.70). Furthermore, Flannery et al. did not provide
adequate information regarding AAI’s validity and the AAI does not include items that
tap into the values domain. It was difficult to judge whether the AAI produced valid
measures for the construct of acculturation.

Second, the criteria variables and the statistical methods that F lannery et al.
(2001) used to evaluate the superiority of the two models were different from what was
used by Ryder et a1 and the current study. F lannery et al. (2001) used the acculturation
subscales of the AAI as predictors in a series of regression models in predicting a battery
of external criteria, such as cultural knowledge, generational status, ethnic identiﬁcation,
extroversion, perceived stress, SAI scores, age, gender, and GPA. They then used the
squared semipartial correlations index (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, as cited in Flannery et al.,
2001) to determine whether each acculturation subscale of the AAI outperformed the
unidimensional acculturation measure (i.e., the SL-ASIA) in explaining the most unique
variance in the external criteria. They did not ﬁnd conclusive results that indicated that
either acculturation subscale of the AAI outperformed the SL-ASIA in explaining the
variance of the external criteria. Hence, they concluded that the bidimensional model was
not superior to the unidimensional model. On the other hand, Ryder et al. used another set

of external criteria including depression, reported symptoms, symptom distress, health

83

maladjustment, social maladjustment, and academic maladjustment. Again, in both cases,
the external criteria were chosen rather arbitrarily, hence, it could be argued that both
studies’ conclusions only pertain to the particular external variables they examined. On
the other hand, in the present study, the superiority of the bidimensional model over the
unidimensional model was directly reﬂected in participants’ response patterns on the
MCAM.

Lastly, the sample in Flannery et al.’s study was uniformly college students at a
California university whereas the sample in the present study included a good percentage
of individuals who were not students and were from all regions of the US.

Differential Dimensionality for NBC and ABC

Another explanation and implication for the mixed results across studies and the
moderate correlations between the two acculturation subscales is that different models
might be needed for NBC and ABC. The results from the differential item functioning
analyses and the separate PCA for each group suggested that this explanation is highly
plausible. The present study found that NBC and ABC exhibited different patterns in
their responses on the MCAM, indicating that the structure of the acculturation construct
may be different for ABC and NBC. The examination of item loadings on the ﬁrst two
components of the PCA for each group suggested that some domains of acculturation
seemed relevant for NBC but not as important for ABC. Speciﬁcally, for NBC, the
following items might not be needed due to their nonsigniﬁcant loadings on the ﬁrst two
components: the items related to the ethnicity of role models on both subscales (C19 and
A19), American custom (A20), and American values (A22). For ABC, the following

items might not be important: the items related to eating Chinese food in restaurants

84

(C12), Chinese role model (C19), and Chinese values (C22). However, further
investigation with a more diverse sample that includes individuals who do not Speak
English is needed to support the proposed exclusion of these items.

Consistently, Benet-Martinez et al. (2002) and Tsai et al. (2000) found that NBC
and ABC seemed to exhibit different patterns of acculturation. Tsai et al. proposed that
the unidimensional model seemed appropriate for NBC while the bidimensional model is
appropriate for second-generation Chinese Americans. In addition, several theorists (Le
Espiritu, 1992; Roosens, 1989) have argued that a new identity and culture that is beyond
what can be captured by the composite of the host culture and the culture of origin is
likely to emerge for ethnic minorities. That is, being Asian American is beyond the
, composite of being Asian and being American. Le ‘Espiritu (1992) labeled this new
identity as “pan-ethnicity” whereas Roosens (1989) labeled the process of creating the
new identity and culture as ethnogenesis. Flannery et al. (2001) thus proposed that a
tridirectional model that includes the ethnogenesisprocess might be appropriate for third-
generation immigrants. More recently, Chung, Kim,'and Abreu (2004) were the ﬁrst to
develop a tridimensional (adding the dimension of pan-ethnic Asian American culture)
acculturation measure for Asian Americans—Asian American Multidimensional
Acculturation Scale (AAMAS). The results of the validation study of the AAMAS
indicated that the pan-ethnic dimension seemed distinctive from the Chinese and
American dimensions. Moreover, it appeared to be reliable and important for
understanding Asian Americans’ acculturation process. Therefore, adding another pan-
ethnic, or ethnogenesis, dimension to the ABC-version of the MCAM seemed to be a

desirable idea.

85

Developmental Theory

This study was able to empirically test the proposed developmental models of
acculturation for ABC and NBC. It has been noted by several scholars (e.g., Gushue &
Sciarra, 1995) that acculturation is a complex process and an individual may acculturate
at different rates in different domains of his or her life. The current study was the ﬁrst in
. acculturation literature to make systematic observations of such phenomena across all the
essential domains of acculturation.

- Generally, the rank ordering of the mean endorsabilities of items belonging to
each of the six components was consistent with the model’s expectations (see Figures 10,
l 1, 12, and 13) with only a few mismatches. In NBC.’s process of acculturating into the -
American culture, English language seemed to be theeasiest for them to pick up.
However, it is noteworthy that since the MCAM is written in the English language, this
Sample probably has relatively high levels of English literacy. NBC reported intermediate
level of adapting American style of leisure activities, social interactions with non-Asian
individuals, and cultural knowledge and holiday customs; It was more difﬁcult for NBC
to get used to American food and most difﬁcult for them to adapt to American values.

In terms of maintaining their Chinese cultural heritage, NBC certainly held onto
their native language and food more than other components. They reported disconnecting
somewhat from their Chinese social network, participating less in cultural knowledge and
holiday customs, and engaging less in Chinese leisure activities. In addition, NBC did not
preserve Chinese values as much as expected. One plausible explanation is that Chinese

immigrants or international students might represent a subset of the general Chinese

86

population; that is, individuals who chose to immigrate or study aboard might not
subscribe to Chinese values as strongly as the overall Chinese population.

In terms of ABC’s endorsement to American culture, using English, watching
American movies, listening to American music, and engaging in American style of
leisure activities were surely easy for ABC. As expected, their acceptance toward
American values was the lowest across the domains. ABC in this sample did not ﬁnd
American food as appealing as one might expect. It was also surprising to ﬁnd that they
did not socialize with individuals of non-Asian groups and participate in American
cultural customs as often as expected. Their endorsements for these three components fell
in the moderate range rather than the superﬁcial range.

In terms of ABC’s involvement in the Chinese culture, they reported strong
appeals to Chinese food and social interactions with individuals of Chinese descent. Their
reported involvements in the Chinese leisure activity and cultural knowledge and holiday
customs were in the middle range. Their endorsement to Chinese values was also in the
middle range. They did not report having moderate level of Chinese language skills as
expected.

The general match between model expectations and empirical data certainly lend
support for the construct validity of the MCAM. Additionally, the side-by-side
comparisons of respondents’ involvement in both cultures across different domains
provide invaluable clinical implications. Psychologists and educators working with NBC
(e.g., Chinese immigrants or international students) need to recognize the fact that
acculturation does not occur in an all-or-none fashion across life domains. They can also

beneﬁt from the knowledge regarding on which domains might NBC ﬁnd assimilation

87

necessary for survival, on which domains might they need maintenance to their culture of
origin for comfort, on which domains might they ﬁnd integration from both cultures
optimal, and on which domains assimilations might never occur. For example, when
working with NBC, it is important to help them develop English competency, encourage
them to engage in American leisure activities, and promote a balance of Chinese and
American social and cultural connections. At the same time, it is as important to help
them ﬁnd Chinese restaurants or grocery stores in the community and assist them to
integrate American and Chinese values rather than impose American values on them.

On the other hand, when working with ABC, it is important to be aware that
Chinese language and leisure activities might be less important to them. Unlike
assumptions made by previous literature (e.g., Mirkin, 1998) and the general public, ABC
appeared to hold Chinese cultural values as much as American values, enjoy social
connections with both individuals of Chinese descent and Americans, and participate in
Chinese cultural understandings and celebrations. These results might reﬂect sample bias,
as the subjects were self-selected to participate in a study related to “Chinese
Americans.” Hence, an ABC who prefers the identity of “American” to the identity of
“Chinese American” may shy away from participating in the study. Other explanations
for these results are the current sociopolitical promotion for diversity and the increasing
number of Chinese Americans in the US. AS a result, the contemporary ABC population
may feel less pressure to conform to the European American values and thus may
increase pursuit of their culture of origin. Another even more convincing interpretation of
this result is Roosens’ (1989) ethnogenesis process—the emergence of a new identity—

or the Asian American panethnicity as referred by Le Espiritu (1992). Both Roosens and

88

Le Espiritu argued that a new identity and culture that is beyond what can be captured by
the composite of the host culture and the culture of origin is likely to emerge for ethnic
minorities. Like Flannery et al. pointed out, “Being Chinese American is often more than
the sum of ‘being Chinese’ and ‘being American’” (p.1042). Hence, the results of this
study seem to reveal the fact that ABCs engage in an ethnogenesis process that involves
integration of both the Chinese culture and American culture.

The few mismatches that are substantively explainable yielded directions for
reﬁnement of the developmental model. Figure 19 shows the reﬁned model and the gray
arrows indicate revisions. Speciﬁcally, it was almost as difﬁcult for NBC to adapt to
American food as to adapt American values. Although this is different from Marfn’s
(1992) model, it certainly concurred with Kalcik’s (1985) assertion that “this is because
the earliest-formed layers of culture, such as foodways, are the last to erode” (p. 39) and
that traditional food eases the shock and discomfort of entering a new culture. On the
other hand, although NBC did not seem to preserve Chinese values as much as expected,
this might be the result of sample bias. Should the sample have included more NBC who
live in Chinatown, the results might be different. Therefore, modiﬁcation regarding
NBC’s adaptation to American food should not be considered until further investigation.
Regarding ABC’s responses on the MCAM-A subscale, despite the fact that the rank
ordering across domains is consistent with model expectation, some modiﬁcation for
some domains is warranted in terms of the intensity of the endorsements. Speciﬁcally, the
domains of food, cultural participation, and ethnic interaction Should be placed between
the superﬁcial and intermediate level rather than in the superﬁcial level. Regarding the

discrepancies between ABC’s responses on the Chinese language and cultural

89

participation domains and model expectations, the model might have overestimated
ABC’s exposure to Chinese language and underestimated ABC’s involvement in Chinese
cultural and holiday practices. As language acquisition requires routine practice, which
ABC might not have the opportunity or the need to have; it is understandable that they
reported very low Chinese language competency. On the other hand, they might have
more exposure, or interests in, cultural events or holiday celebrations, which tend to be
fun, occur only several times a year, and do not require rigorous practice.

Remaining Concerns of the MCAM

Although most items of the MCAM demonstrated sound adherence to the
MRCMLM’S expectations, some items exhibited inconsistent patterns that warrant
concern. Table A43 lists these items, the. problematic patterns they exhibited, and some
proposed actions that might help addreSs the problems.

First, items Cl and C2 exhibited rating scale step calibration disordering and
bimodal distributions. This suggests that these items might ask respondents to make more
distinctions than they could actually make. As indicated in the “Results” section, these
results seem to reﬂect the different response patterns between NBC and ABC (see Table
A22). Speciﬁcally, while the majority of the NBC respondents chose category 5 on these
items, a good percentage of the ABC respondents chose the lower categories. Hence,
NBC and ABC might need to be asked about their Chinese proﬁciency differently. For
NBC respondents, too many items on Chinese language proﬁciency might be redundant
as their native language is Chinese. Thus, I proposed to combine three of the language
proﬁciency items (items C1-C3: reading, writing, and speaking) together into one

question (e.g., Please rate your overall Chinese language proﬁciency [reading, writing,

90

and speaking combined]). This revision might create greater variability among NBC’s
responses on this item. If NBC’S responses still dominate one or two categories, a
reduction of the number of the categories might be desirable. For ABC respondents, since
only the distributions across the rating scale categories for the reading and writing items
(i.e., items C1 and C2) were alike but not for the speaking item, combining only the
reading and writing items is proposed instead of combining the three Chinese proﬁciency
items. Moreover, reducing the number of the rating scale categories to three is also
proposed. An added beneﬁt of reducing the number of the items is making the MCAM a
more efﬁcient instrument.

The items related to English proﬁciency and usage (i.e., items Al——A4 and A7)
also exhibited problems. Although these problems might introduce threats to the content
and structural aspects of validity of the MCAM»(Messick, 1995), another possible
explanation of the results could be sample'bias. Hence, if the sample included NBC
individuals with limited English proﬁciency,the results might be different. This
explanation will require a Chinese-version of the MCAM to be conﬁrmed. Nevertheless,
some revisions are warranted for these items to be used for ABC because ABC’s
dominant language is likely to be English. Since the distributions across rating scale
categories on the English proﬁciency items (i.e, items Al—A4) were almost identical (see
Table A23), I proposed to combine these items into one item (e.g., Please rate your
overall English language proﬁciency [reading, writing, speaking, and understanding of
idioms/slang combined]).

Items 23 and 24 (regarding same-ethnicity marriage and interethnic marriage) on

both subscales of the MCAM exhibited problems with rating scale step disordering.

91

Respondents also demonstrated an overuse with category 3 on items C24 and A24. These
results might reﬂect the fact that the majority of the respondents probably felt indifferent
about whether their children would marry a Chinese or a non-Chinese American. Perhaps
these two items were not as sensitive as other items to capture the construct of
acculturation for bicultural individuals like a good portion of the individuals in this
sample. If the sample has included more individuals who were more Chinese-oriented
and less American-oriented, the results might have been different. According to the
results of the separate principal component analyses for NBC and ABC (see Table A27),
while the same-ethnic marriage items (C23 and C24) seemed relevant to NBC’S
acculturation, they did not seem particularly relevant to ABC’s acculturation as the
loadings were not signiﬁcantly large. On the other hand, the interethnic marriage items
(A23 and A24) were relevant to both groups. However, item A24 exhibited much more
serious problems than the other items related to marriage values, thus introducing more
threats to the content and structural aspects of validity. Taken together, I propose to retain
only item A23 for ABC and retain items C23, C24, and A23 for NBC.

Item A25, which taps into the idea of individualism, exhibited item misﬁt, low
item-total correlation, and rating scale unweighted mean-square misﬁt. These problems
introduced threats to the content and structural aspects of validity. According to the
results of the separate principal component analyses for NBC and ABC (see Table A27),
while this item seemed relevant to ABC’s acculturation, it did not seem particularly
relevant to NBC’S acculturation as the loading was not signiﬁcantly large. Hence, I

proposed to retain this item for ABC but remove it from the MCAM for NBC.

92

In sum, for NBC, the proposed revisions include 1) combining items C1-C3 into
one item that asks NBC’s about their Chinese proﬁciency and possibily reducing rating
scale categories to 3 levels, and 2) removing A24 and A25 from the MCAM. For ABC,
the proposed revisions include 1) combining items C1 and C2 into one item that asks
ABC’s about their reading/writing combined Chinese proﬁciency with a 3-level rating
scale, 2) combining items Al—A4 to one item that asks ABC’s about their English
proﬁciency, 3) removing items C23 and C24.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study
Strengths

This study has several strengths that are distinct from other studies in the
literature of acculturation, especially those of acculturation measures. First, the sample
used in this study was much more diverse in terms of age, occupational, and geographic
demographics. The samples used in the majority of acculturation studies were generally
college students in a single university. As a result, the generalizability of those studies
was limited to college student populations. Second, this study employed item response
theory and a more advanced and comprehensive validity framework (Messick, 1995) to
validate acculturation measures. The extant validation studies of acculturation measures
were based upon a non-uniﬁed theory of validity (e. g., internal consistency, criterion
validity, construct validity) (e.g., Chung et al., 2004, Flannery, 1996, Ryder et al., 2000).
The use of such a framework fails to consider a) whether each item functions in the way
it was intended, b) whether each participant responded to the items in the way he or she

was expected to respond, c) whether each participant used the rating scales in the way

93

they were designed to be used, and d) whether the measure exhibits bias due to
demographic variables.

Third, the MCAM depicts the construct of acculturation in a more comprehensive
manner than do other acculturation measures. Since the MCAM allows bidimensional
measurement of acculturation, clinicians will be able to employ the MCAM to understand
their clients’ acculturation experience on both the Chinese culture dimension and the US.
culture dimension. Hence, clinicians will be able to formulate appropriate treatment
according to their clients’ acculturation level on both dimensions. The MCAM also
measures the construct of acculturation more inclusively than other extant bidimensional
acculturation measures for Asians (e.g., the AAI, VIA, and AAMAS). For example, the
AAI (F lannery, 1996) does not include the domain of values, the VIA (Ryder et al., 2000)
does not include the domains of language and food, and the AAMAS (Chung et al., 2004)
does not include the domain of (value.

Fourth, the present study was the ﬁrst to investigate the developmental theory of
acculturation. While the literature has long suggested that individuals acculturate at
different rates across various acculturation domains, no study has ever empirically tested
a developmental model that addresses each acculturation domain. The empirical evidence
this study has provided regarding the developmental model of acculturation help
understand NBC’S and ABC’s acculturation patterns across various acculturation
domains. The evidence also provides a framework for clinicians and educators to help
their immigrant or bicultural clients to manage their acculturative stress in various areas

of life. For example, clinicians need to be aware that while learning English language is

94

important for clients undergoing acculturation, becoming accustomed to American food
is not important.
Limitations

Several limitations of this Study should also be noted. The ﬁrst limitation rests on
issues with the sample. This sample was a convenient sample and appeared to be highly
educated, thus introducing some threat to the external validity of the study. Moreover,
since the MCAM was written in English, the sample was restricted to individuals who
had a certain level of English proﬁciency as well as acculturation to the American
culture. Hence, the results of this study cannot be generalized to Chinese immigrants who
do not read English. As the participants were asked to respond on the Internet, the results
of this study may only apply to. an Internet sample and might not be comparable to paper-
and-pencil surveys. The factrthat the participants completed the survey in an uncontrolled
condition also introduced some threat to the internal validity of the study.

' Future Directions

The MCAM needs to:be further validated with a more diverse sample that
includes individuals who have low English proﬁciency, lower social economic status, and
who live in, or closely to, Chinatown neighborhoods. This would increase the
applicability of the MCMA to the overall Chinese and Chinese-American population. In
order to include a sample with limited English proﬁciency, the development of a
Chinese-version of the MCAM is necessary. Furthermore, this study was consistent with
previous theoretical conceptualizations (Le Espiritu, 1992; Roosens, 1989) and empirical
evidence (Tsai et al., 2000) showing that the structure of acculturation appears to be

different for NBC and ABC. Therefore, future studies should probably investigate the

95

acculturation processes for these two groups separately. It is also critically important to
develop different acculturation measures and models for each of the NBC and ABC. For
example, an addition of the third dimension—Pan-ethnicity or Chinese-American
ethnogenesis dimension—for the ABC model appears to be a potential area of
development.

The development model of acculturation was ﬁrst investigated in the present
study. The ﬁndings of this study conﬁrmed that one’s acculturation level varies across
life domains. Further investigation in conﬁrming or reﬁning the developmental model
would provide invaluable contributions to the understanding of acculturation. Future
researchers can use the reﬁned developmental model to investigate the relationships
between each acculturation domain and other constructs. For example, are all domains or
only certain domains predictive of immigrants’ or'bicultural individual’s acculturative
stress or psychological well-being? Are all domains or only certain domains predictive of
their attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help? Of course, in order to
investigate these relationships, each domain subscale needs to ﬁrst be validated.

Although this study was able to observe the differential difﬁculties across
acculturation domains at one point in time, this study was not able to observe how each
domain evolves chronologically. That is, the sequence and the velocity of the changes
across domains (i.e., which domains tend to acculturate ﬁrst and which domains tends to
change at a faster rate) were not investigated. Only longitudinal studies can achieve

further understanding of these phenomena.

96

FOOTNOTES

1NBC is deﬁned as individuals who were born in China, Hong Kong, Macao, or
Taiwan.

2Due to the political and cultural differences between China and Taiwan, many
individuals from Taiwan prefer the identiﬁcation of “Taiwanese” and ﬁnd the
identiﬁcation of “Chinese” offensive. The use of “Taiwanese” in the advertisements and
recruiting e-mails is to prevent these potential participants from feeling averse and
reluctant to participant in the study. For the sake of simplicity, the remainder of the paper
uses “Chinese” to include both people from China and Taiwan.

3 Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

97

APPENDICES

98

Appendix A

 

 

Tables
Table A1
Test Blueprint for the MCAM
L F LA El CP V Total
Knowledge 20%
Behavior 40%
Attitudes 40%

 

Total 17.5% 10% 17.5% 17.5% 20% 17.5% 100%

 

Note. L = language; F = food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural

participation; V = values.

Table A2

Distribution of the Initial 60 Items of the MCAM

 

 

 

L F LA El CP V Total %
Knowledge 8 0 2 2 2 0 14 23%
Behavior 2 4 6 2 ' 6 2 22 37%
Attitudes 0 6 2 6 4 6 24 40%
Total 10 10 10 10 12 - 8 60
Percentage 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 20% 13.3% 100%

 

Note. L = language; F = food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural

participation; V = values.

99

Table A3

Revisions Made on the Initial 60 Items Based on Experts ’ Feedback

 

Deletion

 

w

rocess Domain

Items

 

El
E1
CP
CP
F
F
F
F
CP

> >>>>>wmwx

CP

Do you know how to interact with Chinese appropriately?

Do you know how to interact with American appropriately?

33. Are you afﬁliated with a Chinese or Taiwanese
organization?

34. Are you afﬁliated with an American organization?

41. Do you dress in Chinese ways?

42. Do you dress in American ways?

43. Do you decorate your home in Chinese ways?

44. Do you decorate your home in American ways?

53. Do you my participating in Chinese holidays, traditions,
and occasions, etc. (e.g., Chinese New Year, Moon
Festival)? .

54. Do you enjgy participating in American holidays,
traditions, and occasions, etc. (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Halloween)?

 

Addition

 

Process Domain

Items

 

El
El
El
E1
V

> >>>>>

V

I would like to marry a person of Chinese descent.

I would like to marry a non-Chinese American.

I would like my children to marry a person of Chinese descent.

I would like my children to marry a non-Chinese American.

A person should compromise his/her wishes or interests for the
wishes/interests of the group.

A person Should NOT compromise his/her wishes or interests for
the wishes/interests of the group.

Note. K = knowledge; B = behavioral; A = attitudinal; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP =

cultural participation; F = food; V = values.

100

Table A4

Summary of Revisions Suggested by the Pilot Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original item Revision
MCAM-A

24. I have difﬁculg accepting some beliefs I have difﬁculty accepting beliefs held
held by Americans. by Americans.

25. I do N_OT like some behaviors I do NQI like Americans’ behaviors.
exhibited by Americans.

28. A person should NOT compromise Individual’s wishes and interests are
his/her wishes or interests for the more important than family’s and
wishes/interests of the group. society’s wishes and interests.

MCAM-C

24. I have difﬁculg accepting some beliefs I have difﬁculty accepting beliefs held
held by Chinese. by Chinese.

25. I do N_O_'[ like some behaviors I do 119: like Chinese’s behaviors.
exhibited by Chinese.

Table A5

Distribution of the Final 58 Items of the MCAM

 

 

 

L F LA El CP V Total %
Knowledge 8 0 2 0 4 0 14 24%
Behavior 2 4 6 2 6 0 20 35%
Attitudes 0 2 2 8 2 10 24 41%
Total 10 6 10 10 12 10 58
Percentage‘1 17% 10% 17% 17% 21% 17% 100%

 

Note. L = language; F = food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural

participation; V = values.

aPercentage does not add up to 100% due to rounding.

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.05. 28 RE eaeaesea so:

5253 Exp 2:03 En. .N EEBobEV $5 EoEoEmaoE

Anne .5an EB :08 503:5 .E 8525 “BESS $202

binﬁzmbqoo chouEa Eu: EEBobE .E 8929?. Exp 8: 2303 Em A 2: E “CERES was: 05 2Q

EoEcEmE 08850 208

03803.2 :2: mo Qm. 05 E3 EoEmEoo omeosaozamm

803 86:38 Boom :03 E508 mam—0238 Ed £030on

£355 oocoquoo ekwolcommmoci E am: How EowomnEm moeoom

8:833 Eon c8 mEomocmooo 3202 .E 8662a Ea

NAEESLLEEoO ban—«:8 Eoﬂﬁamom newcomlbﬁnmzom $2 bang—8 .E 232 2: 803

$2358 EoEuEmBE

deb E82 53, En ESE

3583. 06. ~23 EBmwmcoo

.3on H680 Eta nommm a E 88 SEES m E 838

35035 wim: So: some com $9223 038 waved $2 @328 2: cm: mEowsommB ED

wmcomwﬁoomxo 3on

:mb E33 2E5 EoﬁmEoo

$202 o6 E 35880

E850 .822: E :5: 32 ES: 05 8 mama—0&2 053

.2358 EoEoEmuoE «.2088 EoEoEmmoE

.SSEOME :58 use EEOLEBEEE: 55o 088 no 3:06:08ng

05 mo ESE? 28m wage Sam 8 Saw a 55 $555865 a a no EEoLEoEEE

05 BEES 8 new: 33 EEEEEoEE 8 E Stop a H535 2:03 a 8 5 Stan “BESS

.mESEm mo acreage 633-3on < $202 0% 9 momcommoim A $202 06. 8 BEER: ED

«commode?
base,

mo 63?. mooEE<mombE< momoﬁomhm meotmonw :oSomom

 

 

 

 

 

ESE; \e 33.3... 3853‘. 2% ES .EubeeV .qmnmﬁemam ..Eenwwam Eggnog? beszsm.

w< 033.

102

 

:3. :20 a

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:00.83. 0820: 302080: 2: 00:03
500 :0 8:000 2<02 8:000 <-2<02 n.0mZ NM.» @8800. 2<02
:05 0::w HO< n.0mZ .:O< :05 0: :20 50.5 082088 90$
803:0: 00:00:80 0:03 0830: D0228: 0c 0303 :0_:0:m_:::_ :0 0mm M02 83
358:6: 80%—0:0 3:250:00 8:03. 0-2<02 m.0mZ ﬁns :05 80838:: :0 09... 2.
8:00.: <-2<02 $8000 0.88:0 <-2<02 :20
:20 0:0 Mi: n.0mZ .MA :2: 0: 50$ 08200:8 y: 0.02 8?
803:2: 02:88: 0:03 0820: 303:8: 00 00:03 920
038:0 883:0 3:28—0:00 8:08 <-2<02 0.0mZ _.N.\. .m.D 20 E 000008: .E 5E0:— N8
. . , .. 8580:: <
-2<02 0:: FEB 0:28:00
8308:: £00 :0 b02200: 0303 m0 NS.
8.50:. 2<02 0:: 0:0 m0 8:088: 0 08:00.: 2<02
:002500 008808: 0:03 -2<02 20 505 0:28:00 20 505 0820008 m0 83
.0584": 82:08 3:238:00 b02009: 0303 m0 :5 $00 2:80 02.008080 2.
2000:: EEME0|A
2:: 5:3 E82800 0:0 :05 300:»
05:0:M0E00 80:00 8:080: 030.08
3:820 8580:: 2:00:38: 2<02 05 .5
2000:. _S:0Em0_0>00 20
:0 800800020 0:: .005 20088—0000 :0 _000::
00:0:E00 0:03 0:02:00 8888080 0:: £05 E82800
50833000 E0820 2:02:00 80833000 08:00 8:88:
_a:::0=::m :0 82.508008 :8: $2 080:8: 8:020:20: 05 0:0 3 .0
0008000
20:? 832:; 25:88:80
:0 8003.. 82050092090. 8859;: 0:008:20 :0808M

 

 

 

 

 

68:28: e< use:

103

 

 

8020888 0:03 80:080.:0
0:: :0:: 80.800 0: 0088080
83 8800 85808 080000:

 

.m.D 0:: :0 80: 0: 8:8 0:: 8. 0>: 0:3
80:: 00:: <-2<02 0:: :0 832 :0:
0-2<02 0:: :0 88:: 0:08 0:003

0888 2<02 :08
:0 88:00 808000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 :03 <>O0Z<2 < .N 8080: 80:83 0:0 08800882 0:: 8:88 .m.D 0:: 0:
8:08:00 $202 0:: 8 00>: 0:3 20:03:08 5005008 was 30: 8080: 80800
:0 88000 808.80 00:8:8 8:08:00 0: 0>: 888 05
8008 :0 808000 0: 08 2<02 0:: :0 88000 808.00 8:88 30:
0:880 0: 00:20 0:03 8008 000:0 .: 0:003 :0 808000 8 00>: 800:0 :68 8:000: 0.8008000 W:
.8030: 0:: 0:08
0:003 0008 008080: 0:: 0:0 .0008
00080000 0:: :3 00328.: 808::
0:: 0:08 0:003 0008 80:08:00 08:08 2<02 :08
0:00:88 083 8088.00 0:: 0:08:00 <-2<02 0:: :O 808:: :0 88::00 80800::
0:: :0:: 8.8000 0: 00:80:80 0:: 0:08 0:003 0008 008080: 0:: 0:38 00080000
83 08:80 850008 008000: 08 .0008 00080000 0:: :3 830:0: :0 £88080:
0 :03 < >00 Z<2 < :0. .0-2<02 0:: :0 :830: 0:: 0:08 488880:
8:08:00 2<02 0:: 0:003 0008 80:08:00 00:00:80.6 ~08 8:08 52:
:0 88:00 80800:: 08:38 8:08:08 5:508 80800
8008 m2 80800 0: 08 2<02 0:: :0 88:00 8080.30 8:88 :03 00008 05
00880 0: 0000—0 0:03 8008 000:0 .: 0:003 8:08 m2 80:00:: :03 800:0 20.: a2: 3:502 :1.
20008 008:8 0:: :03
8080800 0:0 :0:: 8008
080080800 80:00 8:00:00
80:08 88808 800808:
000880 2<02 05 0008800: .0
088:000
80:8, 83085 080080800
.:0 8000:‘ 8200:8808:~ 88:80:00 \800800 :0808:

 

 

638:8: 8 000:

104

 

.Edomm:m_m 20>»
30:0th 2: :2: 53:8
8 38.8353 mm? :33:
3532: @8832 m 53>

dwwto .«o i258 :05 E 538:3
:2: 30 onFE 05 @0388 0:3
035 55 <-2<UE 05 :o kiwi
9:: 0-3302 2: :o 532 Boom
2:03 .m.D 05 E 538:8 :05 mo

$208 $202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<>OUZ<E 3-30:8 < .N 310.38 2: @0388 23 23232: NBS :05 :0 3553 E80336
3:833 3202 05 :0 $2833 $202 on. :o 3.533 «5:58 35:58 320%: 5
38:3 “58%: 8:535 320%: £9356 2:03 x5580 55835 :2: 30 £8.88
3:8w m5 E2033: .2 com 9 2:0: :05 E :o .m. D 05 E 838:3 2: 0332 3:8w ED
:8:me 3:03 803 338 3:80 3 :05 30 £5.88 05 3382 3:05 :58 Ed 5:835 3: 5:804 56
.EwowEwE 0.53
moocohobm: 05 35 Sacco .988
8 35:8qu ma? :wR% 8:: 98 53:33. E :3: on? 03::
8532: @8832 a £3, 5:: $3202 05 :o 532 “:2
<>OUZ<E 3-30:8 < .N 0-3202 2: :o 5&3 Room 2:95 $208 $3.02 :2:
@3833 $202 05 :o 32: SEE E :3: on? £32>€£ N66 :0 mEozmm 820336 .535
38:3 320%: @8535 .83033 $202 05 :0 35:3 3021338: 3:88:
3:8w D E8035: r 8m 8 E883: «53:8 2:03 :ooﬁoﬁmﬁ: E2033: E o>= 3:8w ED
:3:me 60:23 203 3:08 3:80 A 3:89: “shown: 5 :3: 3:90 :68 5V bEBHD 0.5
20on :2:on 2:
~23 323:8 8m :2: 3:8w
oﬁmﬁwoﬁou mmobm 38:3
“3:53 $532: E2333:
383$ :52 E: 8026.83 .5
338%:
bags? 833:; 3383an
mo 83?: 3239:38me momoﬁoamm \mcoumog £03333

 

 

@8588: 3 2%:

105

 

ESE—am 95>» 82.2005.
05 35 8.650 8 cogoﬁoa

.<-2<02 2: :0 among: 05 Boom 2:03
voEE§T=§toE< 2: Ea .cocucoE
-caotoE<-omo:E0 05 3 “093:8
.0332 2: 808 2:95 95% 35202
-8320 2: 585:8 2t :0 .0-2<02
05 so 3030. oﬁ 208 2:03 voEEoE

 

 

 

 

 

83 cmiou 85935 “088%: a -Swotog 05 van .voccaoﬂéaocog $208 2<02 :05
.EB <>O0Z<2 a:-3o=£ < .N -8320 05 3 330:8 48:3: 05 so 2:898 Echogn
$2833 2<02 05 0.53. 2.83 9.8m uoEEoE-omo=E0 2F Na.» 05208 9.5 has“:
so mEotam Eo~o§u “08535 62833. 2<02 2:50 E20006
330% E 0:20.206 b com 05 co 3.53am ERMC=V 0325 2:95 53> 329w ED
35me 8 332m 80>» $82: 9:80 ._ @2252 £550 E20020 :33 3:80 ﬁn.» Cm: €282 oiﬁm Nw
@888 Sm<ﬁm 05
no 3:235 8.8%
$202 2: 203
25?ng
.<~m<-qm 05 .00 338 28m coughs—33‘
.noctotom mm? 05 no 3:062; on 2:95 <-2<02 bucoczﬁm 529$
EESxm ﬂmbacn =23“:on 29:38 < can 0-2<02 mo 38% 0:89:00 2F 2.x Boas—him of. 2.x
2255 12:35
05 £3» E3350
BEBE a 5 305.528
35o mo mosmmoE
.23 82280 8532:
.2:me “concommoh 2402 ED .w
332va 32588
mtg? 8 8582: 850
mo Hoomm< muﬁwcﬁombmé 8352;: @5503: £93801

 

 

 

 

 

egsaoe o< 25

106

 

 

mammmhkv Eu:
328—088: 3838.00.8—
mEv—uom 3:38 8:38
.98888: mo 02:28::

 

 

 

 

 

8.58 2.5.5.5: 888 2<02 05 203
05 mo 038an on 2:03 Emmmhab QB:
.8888: 83 <-2<02 :8 0-2<02 Rama—08b“: 3868.on
EEExm 53:8 858:8: oar—:8 < ._ 05 mo 838 86888 25. 3mm 838.: 2:38 06:52 V.”
.E8E:.w_m 295 8820.25: 838: .58 05 “ﬂak/B
05 :2: 85:8 8 86:88: w:o::~ m3: “8&2 05 08: 389:?» _:omwo_o:o>mm
83 :38: 8582: 8:88: a 2:95 80% guemnxﬁ 2F N.m.w :2: :o mEoumm
as, «582$: 9:32.: < .N .8532: 220:: gees 28$
.8582: m3: 2: mam on: :o “WP—88m “880.0% 8:88am: 8:23—88
:0 mEouum 8202: 8:528 8268 2:03 2003 “88%: wﬁm: 88% ED
88% <00< E2806 .2 08 888.58 838338: 53%
3:..me 8 8:2: 80>» 88:. 89:0 ._ “88$: 98: 8:80 ﬁnd MESA—o? Rama—08%; m.»
20:2:
3588 2: 5:5 “836:8
8:52: a :_ 308:8
850 we 8582: :23
cam—oboe 8582: 88:88:
REoﬁm 2< 02 BO $85280 .w
882:8 388:8 .5 8580:: 850
>558 mo “88¢: 82830335: 885832 88:88 8:88”—

 

 

 

 

 

@35an 8 2%:

107

Table A7

Distribution of Place of Birth and Citizenship

 

 

 

Place of birth Citizenship
Frequency % Frequency %2‘
China 156 26.7 140 23.9
Hong Kong 30 5.1 NA NA
Taiwan 157 26.8 135 23.1
United States 217 37.1 297 50.8
United States PR NA NA 45 7.7
Other countries 23 3.9 25 4.3
Not provided 2 .3 NA NA

 

Note. United States PR = United States permanent residency; NA = not applicable.
alSum is greater than 100% due to multiple citizenships/permanent residency. Among 5 85
participants, 67 (11.5%) participants reported dual citizenship and 1 reported triple

citizenship.

Table A8
Crosstabulation Count of Where Highest Education Received X Where Majority of

Education Received

 

Where majority of education received

 

 

 

Wherehighest China HK/ Taiwan U. S. Other Total Percent
educatlon received Macao

China 36 1 37 6.3
Hong Kong

(HK)/Macao 2 1 3 0'5
Taiwan 23 23 4.0
United States (US) 84 21 84 314 4 507 87.3
Other 4 3 4 11 1.9
Total 124 23 110 316 8 5818| 100
Percent 21.3 4.0 18.9 54.4 1.4 100

 

Note. aTotal does not equal to 585 due to missing data.

108

Table A9

U. S. Region X Current Neighborhood Crosstabulation Count

 

Current neighborhood

 

 

 

U.S. region Urban Suburban Rural Other Dnd Total Percent
Northeast 78 85 16 2 2 183 31.4
Southeast 29 50 1 1 1 1 92 15.8
Midwest 27 55 4 3 89 15.3
Southwest 22 23 4 1 1 51 8.8
West 82 76 4 2 167 28.7
Total 238 289 39 9 7 582‘ 100
Percent 40.9 49.7 6.7 1.5 1.2 100

 

Note. Dnd = did not disclose.

aTotal does not equal to 5 85 due to missing data.

Table A10

Distribution of Reason for Immigration (N = 344, Missing data = 24)

 

Reason for immigration

Frequency Percenta

 

Adventurous/Cultural (e. g., I like to experience different 5
cultures.)

Economical (e. g., My family and I would have better 54
economical status in the US.)

Educational (e.g., I am here for school.) 281

Environmental (e. g., US. is a better place to live.) 77

Involuntary (e.g., I was forced to come to the US. against my 7
wishes.)

Political (e.g., I am an asylum seeker.) 12

Social/Family (e.g., I am here to be with my family.) 46

Other 6

Do Not Know 12

1.45

15.70

81.69
22.38
2.03

3.49
13.37
1.74
3.49

 

Note. aAccumulative percentage greater than 100% due to multiple selection of

immigration reasons.

109

Table A11
Descriptive Statistics of Participants ’ Raw Scores on the MCAM-C and MCAM—A

Subscales (N = 585)

 

Standard

 

Measure Mean . . Minimum Maximum
Devration
MCAM-C 3.61 0.72 1.15 5.00
MCAM-A 3.56 0.62 2.00 5.00

 

Table A12

Summary of the Model-Based Evaluation of Dimensionality (N = 585)

 

 

Model Gz NP CA 1C df PCCAIC
Unidimensronal 90179.90 229 91867.99 356 258.06
Two cultures 81318.86 232 83029.07 353 235.21
Three processes 90052.38 236 91792.08 349 263.01
Six domains 89804.84 254 91677.23 331 276.97
Three processes—by—two cultures 77510.63 254 79383.02 331 239.83
Six domains—by—two cultures 77789.09 317 80125.90 268 298.98

 

Note. G2 = the deviance statistics; NP = the number of parameters contained in the
model; CAIC = Consistent Akiake Information Criterion; df= degrees of freedom;

PC (7,; IC = Consistent Akiake Information Criterion proportionality constant.

110

Table A13

Items Exhibiting Misﬁt in the Bidimensional Model

 

 

Item Fit index
MCAM-C
19. I feel geomfortable when interacting with people of Chinese 1 60
descent. '
25. I do M like behaviors exhibited by Chinese. 1.45
MCAM-A
19. I feel Ecomfortable when interacting with Anglos, Blacks, 1 46
Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups. '
25. I do M like Americans’ behaviors. 1.47
28. Individual’s wishes and interests are more important than 1 57

family’s and society’s wishes and interests.

Table A14

Summary of the Model-Based Evaluation of Dimensionality on the Data with Negatively-

worded Items Removed (N = 585)

 

 

Model 02 NP CAIC df PCCM
Unidimensional 80776.06 205 82287.24 380 216.55
Two cultures 71371.90 208 72905.19 377 193.38
Three processes 80699.80 212 82262.58 373 220.54
Six domains 80416.36 230 82111.83 355 231.30
Three processes-by—two cultures 68209.36 230 69904.83 355 196.92
Six domains—by—two cultures 67890.74 293 70050.62 292 239.90

 

Note. 62 = the Bayesian Information Criterion transformation of the deviance statistics;

NP = the number of parameters contained in the model; CAIC = Consistent Akiake

Information Criterion; df= degrees of freedom; PCCA [C = Consistent Akiake Information

Criterion proportionality constant.

111

Table A15

Estimations of Item Diﬂiculty and F it Indices for Problematic Items and the Means of

Item Diﬂiculty and Fit Indices of All the Items in the MCAM

 

 

 

Item/Item mean Item Weighted Item-total
difﬁculty MNSQ correlation
MCAM-C
12. Do you eat Chinese food in restaurants? -1.74 1.43“ .43
MCAM-A
1. How well can you read English? -1.22 0.80 .18 b
2. How well can you write English? -1.56 0.78 .18 b
3. How well can you speak English? -1.50 0.75 .19 b
4 How familiar are you with English
idioms or slang? -1.25 0.75 .15 b
7. How often do you use English
(reading/writing/listening/speaking
combined)? -203 0.88 .15 b
9. Do you listen to American music? -1.41 0.95 .19 b
11. Do you eat American food at home? 0.13 1.28 .15 b
21. In general, my living style is very
American. 0.03 0.72 .1 1b
23. I would like to marry a non-Chinese
American. 0.70 1.24 .03b
24. I would like children to marry a non-
Chinese American. 0.69 1.33 .05b
25. Individual’s wishes and interests are
more important than family’s and
society’s wishes and interests. 0.10 1.68“ .11b
Mean of all the Items in the MCAM -0.75 0.99 .29

 

Note. MNSQ = Mean square statistic.

“Weighted MNSQ > 1.4. bLow item-total correlation.

112

Table A16

Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step Calibration

Disordering in the Ability Rating Scale (1 as not at all and 5 as extremely)

 

 

 

 

 

Item“ Category % Threshold (1)
C1. How well can you read Chinese? 1 15.0 None
2 16.9 -0.348
3 11.8 0.487
4 8.2 0.819
5 48.0 -O.958“
C2. How well can you write Chinese? 1 15.2 None
2 22.4 -0.683
3 11.5 0.743
4 11.6 0.394b
5 39.3 .0454"
C3. How well can you speak Chinese? 1 5.5 None
2 9.6 -0.601
3 14.2 -0.032
4 19.7 0.424
5 51.1 0.209b
A4. How familiar are you with American 1 1.5 None
idioms or slang? 2 16.6 -2.216
3 21.9 0.268
4 19.8 1.103
5 40.2 0.845b

 

Note. “The letter C before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-C

subscale. The letter A before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-A

subscale. “Disordered step calibration.

113

Table A17
Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step Calibration

Disordering in the Frequency Rating Scale (I as almost never and 5 as almost always)

 

 

Item“ Category % Threshold (1:)
C7. How often do you use Chinese or a 1 9.1 None
Chinese dialect (Mandarin, Taiwanese, 2 11.6 -0.623
Cantonese, etc.) 3 23.6 -O.66“
(reading/writing/listening/ speaking 4 3 1 .1 0.173
combined)? 5 24.6 1 .l 1

 

Note. “The letter C before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-C
subscale. The letter A before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-A

subscale. “Disordered step calibration.

114

Table A18

Response Distribution and Rating Scale Thresholds for Items Exhibiting Step Calibration

Disordering in the Agreement Rating Scale (I as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly

 

 

 

 

 

 

agree)
Item“ Category % Threshold 1‘!)
C18. I enjoy associating with pe0ple of Chinese 1 1.2 None
descent. 2 2.9 -0.741
3 15.0 -0958”
4 35.2 0.306
5 45.6 1.393
. C23. I would like to marry a person of Chinese 1 4.6 None
descent. 2 6.7 -0.52
3 27.2 -1 .109”
4 26.3 0.756
5 35.2 0.873
C24.» 1 would like my children to marry a person 1 5.5 None
of Chinese descent. 2 9.1 -0.92
3 47.9 -1.591”
4 19.8 1.41
5 17.8 1.101”
A23. 1 would like to marry a non-Chinese 1 20.9 None
American. 2 24.4 -1 .453
3 42.9 -1.315
4 8.2 1.502
5 3.6 1.266”
A24. 1 would like my children to marry a non- 1 13.7 None
Chinese American. 2 17.8 -1 .66
3 61.4 -2.076“
4 5.1 2.314
5 2.1 1.422”

 

Note. “The letter C before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-C

subscale. The letter A before item number indicates the item belongs to the MCAM-A

subscale. “Disordered step calibration.

115

Table A19
A Comparison of ABC ’s and NBC ’s Response Distributions across Rating Scale

Categories on the Chinese Proﬁciency items

 

 

 

 

Percentage
C1 C2 C3 C4
Category NBC ABC NBC ABC NBC ABC NBC ABC
2.3 33.6 2.0 33.6 0 13.8 1.5 18.9
5.5 35.9 11.0 35.9 .9 23.0 6.7 36.9
6.7 19.4 8.7 19.4 5.2 28.1 8.1 26.3

9.9 5.1 16.3 5.1 17.4 23.5 31.1 12.9
75.6 6.0 61.9 6.0 76.5 11.5 52.6 5.1
Note. C1 = How well can you read Chinese? C2 = How well can you write Chinese?

Ut-hbJNI-ﬂ

C3 = How well can you speak Chinese or a Chinese dialect? C4 = How familiar are you

with Chinese idioms or slang?

Table A20
A Comparison of A BC ’s and NBC ’5 Response Distributions across Rating Scale

Categories on the English Proﬁciency items

 

 

 

 

Percentag
A1 A2 A3 A4
Category NBC ABC NBC ABC NBC ABC NBC ABC
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 O
2 0 0 2.9 0 3.8 0 26.7 1.4
3 14.2 1.4 26.7 3.2 32.3 2.3 33.4 4.6
4 53.5 14.3 44.8 15.7 36.3 15.2 21.2 16.6
5 32.3 84.3 25.6 81.1 27.6 82.5 16.0 77.4

 

Note. A1 = How well can you read English? A2 = How well can you write English? A3 =
How well can you speak English or a Chinese dialect? A4 = How familiar are you with

English idioms or slang?

116

Table A21
Descriptive Statistics of Participants ’ Acculturation Estimates and Reliability of

Separation Indices on the MCAM-A and MCAM-C (N = 585)

 

 

Subscale Mean SD Minimum Maximum MSE Relo
MCAM-C -0.001 .83 -2.60 2.21 .05 .93
MCAM-A -0.03 .93 -2.22 3.36 .06 .93

 

Note. SD = standard deviation; MSE = mean square error of the participants’

acculturation estimates. Rele = reliability of separation.

Table A22

Descriptive Statistics of the Wald Statistics and the SAI indices for the Gender

 

 

Comparisons

Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Wald Statistics 0.02 2.61 -6.21 5.51
SAI -0.003 0.18 -0.45 0.37

 

Note. A Wald statistic greater than 3.29 is statistically signiﬁcant (p < .05/52 = .00096).

117

Table A23

The Wald Statistic and the Absolute Value of SA] for the Items that Exhibited Statistically

Significant and Meaningfully Large Diﬂerential Item Functioning for Native-bom

Chinese (NBC) and American-born Chinese (ABC)

 

Wald

 

Item statistic ISA”
MCAM-C
1. How well can you read Chinese? 33.55 2.37
2. How well can you write Chinese? 33.26 2.26
3. How well can you speak Chinese or a Chinese dialect 32.4 2.61
(Mandarin, Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc. )?
4. How familiar are you with Chinese idioms or slang? 30.12 2.13
5. How familiar are you with Chinese celebrities, 23.36 1.59
professional sports players, writers, and artists, etc.?
6. How familiar are you with the background history of 20.3 1.55
Chinese holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?
7. How oﬁen do you use Chinese or a Chinese dialect 24.91 1.73
(Mandarin, Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc.)
(reading/writing/listening/speaking combined)?
8. Do you watch Chinese movies/TV programs? 15.49 0.96
9. Do you listen to Chinese music? 18.12 1.08
14. Do you follow news related to China, Hong Kong, 20.94 1.36
Taiwan, or other countries of Chinese origin?
16. I gnigy Chinese ways of entertainments or leisure 10.47 0.74
activities (e.g., watching Chinese movie/TV
programs, listening to Chinese music, playing Ma-
Jiag, practicing Tai-chi, etc.).
21 . In general, my living style is very Chinese. 17.98 1.25
22. I agree with the Chinese value system (e.g., 11.26 0.81
Confucianism, Taoism, or other values about
marriage, families, education, work).
23. I would like to marry a person of Chinese descent. 8. 64 0.57
25. A person should compromise his/her wishes or 8. 43 0.60
interests for the wishes/interests of the group.
26. I understand Chinese culture very well. 22.32 1.74

118

Table A23 (continued)

 

Wald

 

Item statistic ISA”
MCAM-A
1. How well can you read English? -21.3 2.41
2. How well can you write English? -23.7 2.31
3. How well can you speak English? ~25 2.34
4. How familiar are you with English idioms or slang? -30.1 2.34
5. How familiar are you with American celebrities, ~24.5 1.80
professional sports players, writers, and artists etc.?
6. How familiar are you with the background history of -23.9 1.79
American holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?
7. How oﬁen do you use English -l6.l 1.62
(reading/writing/listening/speaking combined)?
8. Do you watch American movies/TV programs? -1 3.7 1.16
9. Do you listen to American music? -17 1.27
10. Other than watching movie/T V programs or listening -20 1.36
to music, do you engage in American ways of leisure
activities (e.g., going to bars, going to football
games)?
11. Do you eat American food at home? -10.8 0.72
12. Do you eat American food in restaurants? . -14 1.09
13. Do you associate with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or —13.4 0.89
other non-Asian ethnic groups? .
14. Do you follow news in the United States? -10.1 0.73
15. Do you participate in American holidays, traditions, -l6.4 1.25
and occasions, etc. (e.g., Thanksgiving, Halloween)?
16. I gm'gy Americanways of entertainments or leisure -14.6 1.20
activities (e.g., watching American movie/TV
programs, listening to American music, going to bar).
17. 1 111g American food. -18.3 1.32
18. I e_nigy associating with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or -14.3 1.07
other non-Asian ethnic groups.
20. I like practices and customs commonly found in -6.81 0.52
American culture (e.g., ways of socialization, money
spending, tip giving habits, ways to treat elders,
communication style).
21. In general, my living style is very American. -21.9 1.55
22. I agree with the American value system (e.g., -7.54 0.61
individualism, or other values about marriage,
families, education, work).
26.1 understand American culture very well. -21.4 1.64

 

Note. ISA1|—= the absolute effect size of an item’s difﬁculty between NBC and ABC,

where SAI =

lig - My.

119

Table A24

Summary of Principal Component Analyses for Native-born Chinese (NBC) and

American-born Chinese (ABC) on the MCAM Items

 

 

 

 

Item Component in the residuals
1 2
MCAM-C NBC ABC NBC ABC
1. Read Chinese -.59* -.58* .61* .38
2. Write Chinese -.63* -.56* .60* .33
3. Speak Chinese -.47* -.53* .41* .24
4. Chinese slang and idioms -.57* -.55* .50* .32
5. Chinese celebrities -.63* -.53* .32 .24
6. History or background of Chinese holidays -.59* -.42* .40“ .10
7. Chinese language use frequency -.66* -.54* -. 10 .13
8. Chinese movie -.52* -.56* -.18 .17
9. Chinese music -.58* -.56* -.22 .14
10. Chinese other leisure activities -.47* -.48* -.15 .12
11. Chinese food at home -.41* -.40* -.41* -.37
12. Chinese food outside -.22 -.13 -.45* -.26
13. Associating with Chinese -.40* -.48* -.33 -.29
14. Following Chinese news -.54* -.45* .31 .11
15. Participating Chinese holidays -.58"‘ -.55* -.23 -.23
16. Enjoy Chinese leisure activities -.54* -.56* -.36 -.17
17. Like Chinese food -.26 -.07 -.29 -.49"‘
18. Enjoy associating with Chinese -.42“.' 9.33“ -.47* -.42*
19. Chinese role model -.32 -.28 -.25 -.27
20. Like Chinese customs -.48* -.40* -.35 -.48"‘
21. Chinese living style -.68* -.57* -.26 -.20
22. Chinese values -.44* -.39 -.16 -.28
23. Marry Chinese -.54* -.38 -.3O -.29
24. Kid marry Chinese -.47* -.37 -.26 -.35
25. Collectivism -.33 -.13 -.08 -.15
26. Understand Chinese Culture -.56* -.39 .30 -.01

 

120

Table A24 (continued)

 

 

 

 

Item Component in the residuals
l 2
MCAM-A NBC ABC NBC ABC
1. Read English .57* .41 * -.30 -.45*
2. Write English .61 * .47* -.32 -.52*
3. Speak English .66* .52* -.34 -.55*
4. English slang and idioms .75* .57* -.35 -.51*
5. American celebrities .72* .46* -.30 -.38
6. History or background of American holidays .66* .46* -.29 -.28
7. English language use frequency .52* .52* -.12 -.44*
8. American movie .51* .53“ -.01 -.30
9. American music .60* .53* -.06 -.37
10. American other leisure activities .63* .61* -.07 -.03
11. American food at home .38 .50* .40* .19
12. American food outside .41* .57“ .29 .16
13. Associating with American .58* .54"' .08 .11
14. Following American news .51 * .44* .08 .00
15. Participating American holidays .43"‘ .39 .00 .00
16. Enjoy American leisure activities .62* .53* .06 -.03
17. Like American food .39 .52" .11 .14
18. Enjoy associating with American .51 "‘ .56* .14 .06
19. American role model .35 .48* .25 .44*
20. Like American customs .32 .48* .27 .46*
21. American living style .74* .70* .22 .17
22. American values .21 .52* .26 .43“
23. Marry American .49* .48* .47* .42*
24. Child marry American .26 .41* .49“ .56*
25. Individualism .15 .31 .29 .48*
26. Understand American Culture .68* .47* -.07 -.07

 

Note. *F lags signiﬁcant loadings.

Shaded cells indicate differential item functioning between NBC and ABC.

121

Table A25
Domain Endorsability Estimates for Native-Born Chinese (NBC) and American-Born

Chinese (ABC) on the MCAM-C and the MCAM-A Subscales

 

 

 

 

MCAM-C MCAM-A
NBC ABC NBC ABC
Domain Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
L -1.57 .30 .57 .32 -.94 .48 -2.18 .23
LA -.61 .66 .41 .55 -.87 .54 -1.81 .19
F -1.73 .54 -1.44 .33 -.10 .41 -1.10 .66
CP -1.34 .25 -.194 .38 -.26 .61 -1.19 .40
E1 -1.16 .65 -.87 .64 -.02 .42 -.76 .54
V -.69 .38 -.09 .35 .50 .56 -6.05 .56

 

Note. SD = standard deviation; L = language; LA = leisure activity; F = food; CP =

cultural participation; E1 = ethnic interaction; V = values.

Table A26
Intercorrelations among NBC ’s Scores on the MCAM-C, MCAM-A, Length of Residence

in the United States (LR), and Age of Immigration (A01)

 

 

Variable/Measure MCAM-C MCAM-A LR AOI
MCAM-C -- -.50”** (.25) -.43”** (.18) .46°** (.21)
MCAM-A -- .56”** (.31) -.55°** (.30)
LR -- -.67“** (.45)
A01 --

 

Note. “72 = 344. ”n = 238. “n = 300. “n = 234. Sample sizes were not all equal to 344 due to
missing data.
Values in parentheses are effect sizes.

**p< .01

122

Table A27
Group Means and Standard Deviations of MCAM Subscale Scores for Mobility,

Geographic Location, Urbanity, and Location of Majority of Education Received (LE)

 

 

 

Demographic Variable MCAM-C MCAM-A
N Mean SD Mean SD
Mobility
Permanent 212 -.41 .77 .50 .86
Temporary 93 .64 .60 -.80 .61
Undecided 123 .28 .74 -.37 .75
Geographic Location
Northeast 136 -.O7 .79 .01 .92
Southeast 75 .06 .73 -.06 .85
Midwest 66 -.01 .92 -.03 1.10
Southwest 48 -.01 1.01 .01 1.01
West 120 .13 .84 -.09 .94
Urbanity
Urban 179 .10 .80 -.10 .90
Suburban 224 -.05 .86 .07 .95
Rural 33 .20 .90 -.41 1.11
LE
US. 234 -.44 .73 .55 .82
Home Country 211 .54 .62 -.69 .60

 

123

wax .. ~-----i

wooV 32.2."...

.of M86803 0 80820:: down—0:8 0.80.80.“ 0 80820:?

.82? Q 08 88:08.8: 5 823/

.Mow 0208 n.- m .Mowloo n v .Mowlcv u m @873 n. N Jam 30.02 u _ ”0:8 0885 Nth-5:58 0:8: n _ “.md .l. o

602000.. 83880 mo tam-8.8.: mo 8802 n mi ”0080: 000:8:w u v .000w0v 02088 n m .00-$0: 3:208? 98 08688 n N .30—0n

0:0 .880 :wE n _ ”_0>0_ 838300 .1- :cm ”dd-:0: 0 ~ ”.md n o ”5:3 .«o .0088 u moo ”2080a u _ ”0.02 n c ”008 8:80 .032

 

 

.. 0885

n ***_..8o.v er 1.. m..—
aatasit- 8:28:88. -- 8:830
pilikoog ri «tinge-V we. n****80.v ”V. 1 mOU
a a: 8.- .83 S.- ..23 8.- .5; 8. - 8280
8258. 18:82.02. 2:18:35. 1:280: .2538.- -- cm<
ace-483mm. ...,-:83?- attso.:m.- 1:28:0- Lmaecor .95 s.- -- $252
8......838- 1:18:80 act-836m. 1...:33 a. .538. .808. 338:0.- -- 0-3202
05802

6585 m: 260 m8 8280 cm< 5282 0.3202 8383

 

0583 3:: «ME h0ﬁ000- :0::0=h@\e 520.93 031? reuueue-N
.363 ~83 zezaghm .30-u» «Em-N: 8580 203200 .0MV 830% 03033.0 V5.0: . muzekamtum M228 30:30:3823

wm< 030,—.

124

Table A29

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Mobility (MB) as the Between-Subject Variable

and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures

 

F“

 

Source df 172 j
MCAM 1 4.09* .01 .04
MCAM x COB 1 37.57***** .08 .00
MCAM x Edu l .55 .00 .46
MCAM x LE 1 38.42***** .08 .00
MCAM x Income 1 5.89“ .01 .02
MCAM x MB 2 13.53***** .06 .00
Error 421 (.61)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error, COB = country of

birth: 0 = U.S.; l = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and below, 2 =

associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree; LE = location

of majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; l = home country; Income code: 1 = below

20K, 2 = 20—40K, 3 = 40—60K, 4 = 60—80K, 5 = above 80K; MB = MB code: 1 =

permanent, 2 = temporary, 3 = undecided.

aF value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

*****p < .001. *p < .05.

125

Table A30

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Geographic Location (GL) as the Between-

Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures

 

F"

 

Source df j p
MCAM l 15.23***** .03 .00
MCAM x COB 1 43.36***** .09 .00
MCAM x Edu 1 .15 .OO .70
MCAM x LE 1 89.42***** .17 .00
MCAM x Income 1 8.61 *** .02 .00
MCAM x GL 4 1.93 .02 .10
Error 436 (.64)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error. COB = country of

birth: 0 = U.S.; 1 = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and below, 2 =

associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree; LE = location
of majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; 1 = home country; Income code: 1 = below

20K, 2 = 2040K, 3 = 40—60K, 4 = 60—80K, 5 = above 80K; GL code: 1 = northeast, 2 =

southeast, 3 = midwest, 4 = southwest, 5 = west.

31"" value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

***p < .005. *****p < .001.

126

Table A31

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Urbanity (U) as the Between-Subject Variable

and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures

 

F’

 

Source df 772 p
MCAM 1 12.05***** .03 .00
MCAM x COB 1 40.02***** .09 .00
MCAM x Edu l .40 .00 .53
MCAM x LE 1 86.99***** .17 .00
MCAM x Income 1 6.80“ .02 .01
MCAM x U 2 2.09 .01 .13
Error 429 (.64)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error. COB = country of

birth: 0 = U.S.; 1 = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and below, 2 =

associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree; LE = location

of majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; 1 = home country; Income code: 1 = below

20K, 2 = 20—40K, 3 = 40—60K, 4 = 60—80K, 5 = above 80K; U code: 1 = urban, 2 =

suburban, 3 = rural.

aF value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

**p < .01. *****p < .001

127

Table A32

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Location of Majority of Education Received

(LE) as the Between-Subject Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures

 

 

Source df F“ 172 p
MCAM 1 .42 .00 .52
MCAM x COB l 41 .20***** .09 .00
MCAM x Edu 1 .06 .00 .80
MCAM x Income 1 824*" .02 .00
MCAM x LE 1 89.82***** .17 .00
Error 440 (.64)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error. COB = country of

birth: 0 = U.S.; 1 = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and below, 2 =

associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree; Income code:

1 = below 20K, 2 = 20 — 40K, 3 = 40 - 60K, 4 = 60 — 80K, 5 = above 80K; LE code: 0 =

U.S.; 1 = home country.
aF value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

*****p < .001. ***p < .005.

128

mooV Biz."

.OF—u m “Engmam m mom—“0:359 .GOUQ—Otco mocOmuwom w mugmommvﬁr

.m0=_0> Q 000 000058.003 E m0=_0>

.9580 0:8; H _ ”.mj H o ”008 m4 20058 000.60% 0530 u _ :oocom 03:00.8. 3203 H o ”0600 30m ”.mjéo: u _ ”.mj

n o ”H 0000 mOU ”0.0808 n _ 038 u o ”008 009.00 80.58 0.00m :osﬁszsoo’x 83:03.:0m :0_m< 304-585 H <_m<--_m .082

 

 

-- m:
._ :83 8. -- =00
. 5:83 8. a .383 8.. - 000
.83 8.- .83 8.- .83 8. -- 30:00

. ...,...83 mm. .. :83 S. . .183 2. .83 8.- -- 00.0
. ...183 m0- . ...,-88.8 a..- . 188.0 8.- 0:3 8.- .83 8.- -- £330
m: :00 000 5050 00.0 $3-8 eaagusaa>

 

83 003800 8280008 83.8:

\0 =0.:000- ES .30,-E ~0>0N 29:00:.0m .30-v» $55.8 Attach {030$ .03. .00-800 EMT-Sm. . Etuﬁﬁtam @2050 0202308000005

m m< 030-.-

129

Table A34

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Scores of the Suinn-

Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA) (n = 5 70)

 

 

2
Variables A R B SE B ’9
Step 1 .66
Country of birth --.30 .03 -.22 (.00)****
Education level -.04 .03 -.03 (.11)
LE -.25 .04 -.18 (.00)*****
Step 2 .19
MCAM-C -.31 .02 -.38 (.OO)*****
MCAM-A .21 02 .29 (.00 *****

 

Note. Country of Birth: 0 = U.S.; l = non-U.S.; Education level code: 0 = below graduate

school; 1 = above graduate school; LE = location of majority of education received: 0 =

U.S.; l = home country.
Values in parentheses are p values.

*****p < 00]

Table A35

Group Means and Standard Deviations ( (SD) of the MCAM Subscale Scores across

Groups Diﬂ‘erent Ethnic Identity

 

 

 

Ethnic identity MCAM-C MCAM-A

N Mean SD Mean SD
Chinese-identiﬁed 22 l .53 .63 -.64 .66
Chinese-American-identiﬁed 1 89 -.39 .67 .47 .71
American-identiﬁed 35 -.88 .92 l .09 1 .02

 

130

Table A36
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Ethnic Identity (E1) as the Between-Subject

Variable and the MCAM Subscales as Repeated Measures

 

 

Source df F’ If p
MCAM 1 14.49***** .03 .00
MCAM x COB 1 18.17***** .04 .00
MCAM x Edu I .33 .00 .57
MCAM x Income 1 8.15" .02 .00
MCAM x LE 1 40.46***" .09 .00
MCAM x El 2 40.44***** .16 .00
Error 438 (.54)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error. COB = country of
birth: 0 = U.S.; l = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and below, 2 =
associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree; Income code:
1 = below 20K, 2 = 20—40K, 3 = 40—60K, 4 = 60—80K, 5 = above 80K; LE = location of
majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; l = home country. El code: 1 = Chinese-
identiﬁed, 2 = Chinese-American-identiﬁed, 3 = American-identiﬁed.

aF value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

**p < .01. *****p < .001.

Table A37
Group Means and Standard Deviations of the Psychological Well-Being Measures (Life
Satisfaction and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist [HSC]) across Groups That Used

Dtﬂerent Acculturation Approaches

 

 

 

Acculturation Approach Life satisfaction HSC

N Mean SD Mean SD
Integrative 249 3 .94 l . 12 l .99 .53
Separation 92 3 .10 1.1 1 2.09 .5 l

Assimilation 82 4.16 1.04 2.00 .54

 

131

moo. V B12.. goo. V 32.3...

of $58.8on a 83065.. dose—oboe Pcomcmom a 3:80:85.

32$, R 8a mow-05:88 E 825/

.Mow 96% n m .Mowloo u v .Moiv u m .Movlom

H N JEN 333 H ﬂ “once 0885 $3550 08o: H ﬂ ”.md H o ”288 m5 moocwoc 8.33% H v doomed .8353 H m .oocwow 128:3?

93 83083 H N .323 Ba 396m :3: u _ Havoc 28m ”mi-co: n _ ”.md n o ”288 moo 638$ n _ 6E8 n o ”oboe 8390 .832

 

 

.8388.- 88.888.31.3832.- 1:88.82.- .83 3.- 13832.. -- 0mm
...,...838.1.1.838;......832.-11:88.33.- .838. .833. 1.1.832.- -- 3
2:85 mg sum .50 bosom ow< om: m4 238:

 

8585 36 $3» Nomad-gum notuuznmsxo 5.20.333 29:3qu .33-3 36% tote-ozhm .390» ShQKo .93on ”532mm .mMV

535 38 3mm» 33.825 888.3% attach 2.: more So: «m3 BENEBM MEN 3% to 8.8-om. . Ezcﬁamgm «$953 ESBREQD

wm< 2an

132

Table A39

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance with Acculturation Approaches (AC CA) as the

Between-Subject Variable and the Psychological Well-Being (P WB) Measures as

 

 

Repeated Measures

Source df F” U2 p
PWB 1 9.33*** .02 .OO
PWB x Age 1 3.94* .01 .05
PWB x COB 1 .38 .OO .54
PWB x Edu l .39 .OO .53
PWB x Income 1 3.57 .01 .06
PWB x LE 1 3.64 .01 .06
PWB x ACCA 2 10.57***** .05 .00
Error 415 s(.82)

 

Note. Value enclosed in the parenthesis represents mean square error. PWB was
measured by the life satisfaction item and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; COB =
country of birth: 0 = U.S.; 1 = non-U.S.; Edu = education level: 1 = high school and
below, 2 = associate and vocational degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = graduate degree;
Income code: 1 = below 20K, 2 = 20—40K, 3 = 40—60K, 4 = 60—8OK, 5 = above 80K; LE
= location of majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; 1 = home country. E1 = ethnic
identity: 1 = Chinese-identiﬁed, 2 = Chinese-American-identiﬁed, 3 = American-
identiﬁed; ACCA code: 1 = integrative, 2 = separation, 4 = assimilation.

2|F value represents Wilks’ Lambda.

*p < .05. ***p < .005. *****p < .001

133

Table A40
Correlations between Participants’ Scores on the Attitudes toward Seeking Professional
Psychological Help Scale (A T SPPHS) and Age, Gender, Country of Birth (COB),

Education Level (Edu), and Location of Majority of Education Received (LE)

 

Measure Age Gender COB Edu LE
ATSPPHS .21 (.00)*****“ .14 (.00)*** b .06 (.13)b .19 (.00)*****° .14 (.00)***d
Note. Gender code: 0 = male; 1 = female; COB code: 0 = U.S.; l = non-U.S.; Edu code: 0

 

= below graduate School; 1 = above graduate school; LE code: 0 = U.S.; 1 = home
country.

3n = 578. bn = 585. °n = 582. dn =573. Sample sizes were not all equal to 585 due to
missing data.

Values in parentheses are p values.

***p < .005. *****p < .001.

134

Table A41
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Scores of the

Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale (A TSPPHS) (n = 563)

 

 

2
Variables A R B SE B ﬂ
Step 1 .08
Age .11 .04 .13 (.01)**
Gender 1.77 .45 .16 (.00)*****
Education level 1.37 .57 .13 (.02)*
LE 2.12 .65 .19 (.00)**
Step 2 .03
MCAM-C -.79 .37 -.12 (.03)*
MCAM-A .71 .35 .12 (Q4?

 

Note. Education level code: 0 = below graduate school; 1 = above graduate school; LE =
location of majority of education received: 0 = U.S.; 1 = home country.

Values in parentheses are p values.

*p < .05. **p < .01. *****p < .001.

135

 

EBEEOEO

Om< Em omz :353 32030
33 mEEEEE Eu: .EEQEEE .N
.oo:8o.m=u covcom :8 votompo
E: 33 mEEEEE Eu: EthEE .—

.Um< Ea omZ
5933 6:8 2:03 m5 .N
.5an
Eu :2: 50253
#68 E: 2:03 ED .—

2mEcoEo:E

Eu: EEEHEEVEE Ens—2:32:
mo 8:025 EEES $202

05 E 3:13:00 ES: 05 on

In.

 

@2833 05 mo

25:32.6 3:23.: 02309.2 E2: :9:
8:225. 295 $53 cog—Ego 9&0 =<
@2833. Eon :8 ma. n

$=o=§=ma~ mE_om:=oo
98 £288: E 8: :8 E0658
388 $202 mo :Eﬂooa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:53:8050 E20508 3:533: 5:888 :oﬂom <\Z Em Egg—o: mo £32 2: 2< .v
ﬂow: on 8 38%? 20>» 55
as,» 2: E 3:02:33: 2: .3 com: on 8 “um—0:2: EoEoSmmoE E8:
3323: £5: “8:: :8 28m wEE: 2: E8:— E3 Em EBE NSF—Em 05
En 306E E PanamLaoE US$335. E3 E3228 E 35 SEE: a E
_EBo=bm 05838: @8525 88: H82 32 3.8,: mEE: 2: 3: mEoEommu: on .m
.2325”. 058 BEE Amm<lmm<v wmcozﬁoomxo E58 :8...
85: 8:5 bco .Eonu—otoo 383:0: E8:— E3 E0328 $202 05 E
E880 E: E ﬁasco—Va “c8525 95: “mo—2 <\Z REFER. 2:0: 05 8 820:8: 2< .N
.20on 225E
EoEoEmaoE :oﬁo Ea 3:222:25. E35532: 850 E:
05 .85 ESE Eéon 2: _m:o_m:oEE:: a :5: 5.239: EoEoSmmoE
83 ESE EoEoEmuoE 3:223:29 3:222:65 m 8 E 350 2:8 .5 _a:o_m:oE_E::
a 35 v28;— EEEEEDEE Stop a “BESS $202 a :o 3:228:65 a 9 E .533
REES—Em mo gums—go 3934255 < 05 8 $238M ._ EEEB $202 05 8 820%”: on .—
votommmml
36:2
mo 60%,: EamoEmombE< 8853b; Eozmosc :oSomoM

 

 

Emtommsh A555. \e 823‘. EEEuM 2% ES .Ezmmm Gangsta: ..Eetnuzm c.3335? REESE.

Nv< £98.

136

 

EO< E2: 0: 8:022
33:08: 3:802:20 0:03
8:08 <-2<02 9094 was
EO< E2: 0: 8:22
33:80: 3:802:38 0:03

EO< E2: 0:

8:20: 33:08: 2: 2:03
8:08 <-2<02 m.0mZ was

EO< E2: 0:

8:02 33:80: 00 2:03

08:08 3202
E2: :23 820080 90$
8:02:85: :0 0w0 8.0mZ 003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20:20:20 8:08 0-2<02 @024 :00 8:08 0-2<02 m.0mZ :20 CO3 8:222:20 09: ms
08:08 20808 <-2<02 E2:
M2 E2: 0: 820: M2 E2: 0: :23 8.020080 :4 9024 003
33:80: 3:802:20 0:03 8:020: 33:80: 03 2:03 920
02020 8:08 <-2<02 m,Umz :NN 8:08 <-2<02 8:002 :Ns .m.D 2: E 00:028: :0 2:00:04 N:
8:802: <-2<02 8:802:
2: :23 8:02:00 3328: <-2<02 2: :23 0:02:00
2:528: 33 mo 0. : s 2228: 283 m0 0.:
.8582: 0-2<02 82800:: 08:08 3202
2: :23 8:022:00 33:08: 0-2<02 2: E3 0:02:00 2: :23 82088 m0 803
08800 2:50:80 33 00 2.: 203002 283 mo 2.: $00 3% 080850 E
208:: 05020
2: :23 E22250 0:0 :2: 8::0:m
02:0:w080: 80:00 220:0: E028
0:820 8:802: E08080: 2<02 00 .0
00:28:08 2200::
2822:0230: 2: :23 E22800 0:0:022800 :0 20:2:
3_0:0:0m 83 8020: 8:022:80 2:08:230: 2: :23 E22800
E202: 80:00 202: 32502028 2:080: 8:022:80 80:00 020:0:
23025 20E :0 9:820 :20: 2F 22 8:0:8: 2:020:20: 2: 0:< .0
82238
22$
:0 80:9: 3282803050: 88503: 2880:: E20082

 

 

82:28: NE: 0:0:

137

 

 

 

.m.D 05 HO mGOm Du H050 sump—00m

2: a 0E 9E 085 as $252 2: 252 :2: 8 mega
so 532 Sn 0-3202 0:... so “onwE Boom «55¢me :ch .m.D 05
@303 mcommou 5030? can anmaoatoz 5 SUV 22m“: Euhdﬁﬁ
.3333 252 2: as 5 BE 2? £3365 éSEBQm N2 5 3: anew an
:0 £558 Eouombu 3335 you .830me $202 05 no mEotma Eouomtw 39

.ms sotmoozﬁmﬁwooc ms

'—

E 40 255:6 2 BE 885 £25 283 4o “schema 5 BE 885

 

.5032 05 808 2:03

95% @8388 05 can d:on 328cc:
2: E 830:8 JmonwE 2: 208 2:03
30% Bondsman 05 "28873 <-E<U§

05 :0 .6053 05 208 2:03 anew $808 $202

.385an b.2388 05 98 dsohw onoovg 2: :2: co mucosa Subway

2: 385.38 £32 EH 3: B voBo=£ 6-502 05 no “832 05 “SEE $02893

.818ng 208 2:03 gnaw Eggnog .bﬁommoomm N: 8 .3598“: dcoggoﬁ

$202 2: no manna .81833 98% 32v bang:

Beanbag 3535 335 «>202 05 no 9533 EBQEE “BEE Eubﬁﬁ HEB 3:on ED

Eﬁﬁxm m2 Huang—u ﬁrs 3:80 31‘ 2:03 38m m2 “:20th £3» 3:86 :1. 833 3:582 v.5

 

20on 3:85

2: 5m? Ecumicoo 3m
E5 83on oEmﬁonou
mmohom manta 2935

 

 

 

 

 

 

$5308 “newcomme
:3“me $202 on Gus—Hucoov 6
@3863
big, moﬁaug oEmﬁmoEoQ
mo 833x mzzmoytmombnﬁx momoﬁomzm \maoumunc soaomom

 

88553 NE ﬁg

138

 

0000:0003:

0:0 0088.800 $8008 0: H ass
0:833 $202
05 80 80088 880:6
0035208 38000 080:
:05 8 80 .m.D 0:0 8
00:00:00 :05 :0 3:00.88

.Ewto :0 38:00 :05

8 00:00:00 :08 :0 3:80.88 08

0030008 0:3 000:0 00:0 (32:52

20 so 5&5 :5 0-252

08 00 8030: 808 3:03 .m.D

0:0 8 80:00:00 :05 :0 3:00.88
08 0030000 0:>> 200238: N85

.00—80:00

$202 08 00 880800 8080mm:

055080 2003 38000 080: :08

8 00 .m.D 0:0 8 80:00:00 :08

$00000 3202
:05 :0 88080: 808:6
“5308 00:88:00 8088::

8 80:00:00 :08 :0 3:00.88

05 030008 98% ED

 

 

 

 

 

3808: 0:: 0030000 00:05 :85 :0 3:80.88 05 003002 00:05 2.8 Amd 00:00:00 :0 80:80: 5.5
.0000 :88 000 85853 05
8 00>: 0:3 088 80:0 <-E<UE
0:0 :0 8030: 8: 0-3202
0:“ 00 00:8: 08000 2:03 0008
00:8 8 00>: 0:3 2002305 N08 0008000 502 :06
00—0033 .00—000:3 :0 80088 880%: 05306
$202 05 :0 08030: 8080:“:8 $202 05 00 080800 8080::0 0000:5936: 380:8
8:88 00: 0:0 000808360 05:80 2:03 08:83:80: 880%: 8 0>: 300% ED
D 8080mm: 8 00>: 3:05 380:8 8080.350 8 00>: 800.5 E: 5: 3800783 0:.
20008 88080
05 :85 80380000 08 00:0 258w
039080800 80800 08080:
03308 880008 800008000
78.80me 2402 0Q 30008808 .5
00308000
36:? 838.03 0308m080a
m0 000mm< m:=m0m\m0m30:< $005003: B00503 €808:

 

 

 

 

68883 NE 23

139

 

.<-E<02

05 no 5033 2: 20% 2:03 BEEQE
Lactose 05 can .wumucoE-§otoE<
-omocEU 05 as 33230 .0332 2: 208
2:95 gnaw commuaoﬂémgﬁ0 2: $0288

 

 

 

 

2t :0 0-3202 05 so 5952 05 208 @388 3202
2:03 ﬁve—0352-525: 05 23 605052 :2: :o mEoumm
335093 -qmotogmeEU on“ 3 326:8 .umonmE 055me 05308
05 antenna £32 och N.m.w 2: Room 2:95 98% vowuaoﬂémnEEU 2:. Na.» Cm: 3652
3:333 3202 $2833 0650 058.006
05 so mEoﬁwm “:80th $202 05 so 35qu 055006 03208 SE 3:on ED
38me @3350 E 53> 3:80 ﬂaw 259$ 5:52 2:50 “:08th £15 8:80 MN.” ems 3:52 25am Nw
@888
.80 3:868 203 ﬂamingo <Hm<im 2:
05 8% 350m Sm<ﬁm 00 0386on meson
05 go 8555 #858205 00 $202 05 20>?
$2 3:635 Ea 3860a 25$qu 28m
banmEmE 203 8532: .<Hm<-qm 05 nouSBEoo<
$202 05 ES @283: mo 88% 2: mo 0202on on 2:03 <-2<02 bucouE—om :33.
35me £3128 563%»: 29:38 < was 0-3202 00 888 0:89:00 ugh 2.x 33-535 2E. ﬁx
2288 3585
2: :33 05328
$888 a E 32528
Hoﬁo .«o $5308 HEB
822.80 8:688
1%:me 325880 $202 on .w
33835 $2528
36:? S 3:688 .0050
we Hoomm< mzsmogmombaﬁx womoﬁomxm \mcoumosc aohmumom

 

 

 

 

 

9350500 NE 03¢

140

 

.08

00:80:00 20>» 83:98 05 00a“ 0088
FEW—k 05 mo 005E? 23:25.05 00
gm 9:28.98 Ea 0>so€0a bEmoEcwa
0003 00530:. $202 0.3 005

.0083. FEW—tax 05.3
038605 09 2:95 <

-3202 2:0 0.3302

050.520

20; 30329.38 356.00%...“

Maw—000 3032 000330

.ﬂcoucommou mo 03860.5

0088 $3.02 05 20>»
£00030 0.3
.mzmo—osohma _a=o_m00moa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2:me 00—0050 mix—0:0 acumewB 03:35 < mo 88% 0:89:00 05‘ 3mm was—000 3038 03.52 V.”
025.9% gangs—300
Sow 05 wcoﬁu mam
. 50:3: 05 02E 2:03
.9.on co:0__E_mma 05 Ho: :5 95% 95% 03:23:: och NM.»
5:888 05 :05 mam 005mm; 6.050008 «Km—3% w:_0n-=03 Romany—0:33
Expats 908w 02:23:: Err N.m.w mam 05 co "2:033 :05 :0 9:0st EobbE 05208
00530:. E000§c 05208 2:03 2003 005000590 conga—=80
m3; 05 no 20093 E000t6 A<UU<V 00300230 EBobE win: 339% ED
uBEEﬁ A<UU<V 00:08:50 =0:8B_=000 83%
.9:me 5:832:80 E20050 was: 3:20 2”.» 0:20.050 9:0: 3:80 ﬁma wEBéoB Hoﬁo—onohmm Wm
Soto:— .9:on
05 5:5 0:020:00 00:52: a 5
80:50:00 0050 we 00.5308 .23
820:8 02:30:. 0:02.800.
:2:me E<UE on €033.58 .w
300000200
5:53 32.5050 8 023008 0050
.3 000mm< $300M momoﬁoamm \mcozmosc zohomom

 

 

€029.80 92 0:3

141

 

4:00.595 008000 0:0
030— 003 DmZ 00.: m:_000_

3:0:0> :0 “00:00 0:00:03
5:20:00 38.80: 301—
3:0=0> :0 80:00 00:50:53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0: m0 000: .UmZ .0“: N w:::00:00_0 00:05:00 00%
.m< 0:0 .N< .:< GEE—00, :0 000900 3:30:53 0w:0_m :0
::>> 0:5500 .Um< 00m ._ 5:020:00 3008:»: 0:020: :00_:0E< 5:3 :0» 0:0 5:50.: 30:.v< 0w0:m:0:
.060: 0:0 00 v< 0:0 .m< 3:0:050 .00mm0 3:30:me
.N< ._< 0:5:80 .Um< 00": .N :0. 0:0 .m< .N< 2:0:
.E<UE 00.: _ b03000 E :000tomno
05 :0 :0_80>-000:EU 0: ._< E0: 00.: N 0:0 _ 0::—gm 00: :0» 00 5:0 30:13.»:
0 win: 3 5:20:00: b09300 5 20003030 02 0::—gm :02: :0» :00 :03 302.3:
:m=m:m 00:8: 505 3:0:3 :0 000000 0:00:08 Emzwqm 0:03 :0: :00 :03 303.?
00:9:00 0030:: .DmZ 00m ._ 8:00—0:00 0800-80: 30: 0::—gm 000: :0» :00 :03 30:. _< 0w0:w:0:
00:03:00 :0
002:5: 0:0 00:00: .No 0:0
5 :8 2.358 .0:< 8: .0 092:; 00
.950: m ..w.0v 00:03:00 .«0 000000 3:30:53 w:t00:00_0
0008:: 05 00:00: 3:00.00: 5:05:00 a8m.~
0:0 E0: 0:0 8 mo 0:0 .NU 3:0:9 :0 000000 30:00:03 00005.5 :0on :0» :00 :03 BoENU
. :0 0.0 0:358 dmZ .8“: ._ 0003500 30085 00:00:30 000: :0» :00 :03 303.5 0w0:m:01_
:000< 000805 08030:: 02:0: E0800

 

arotuw 00000.0wa 3:: 0E0- 0.085030an

mv< 030k

142

0.00050 <-2<0:>. 05 0: 050.0: 50: 05 :05 00:00:05

005:: 50: 0:0:0: < :030. 0::l 0.00050 0.3200: 0:: 0: 050.0: 50: 05 00:: 00:00:05 595:: 50: 80:0: 0 :030. 0::;w 0:02

 

9:0:9» :0 SE00 00:30:50:
0.000 M500: :0 0:05:

 

 

20:00-:005 00::m_03:D .m
9:50; :0 80:00 0:00:00: 0:00:85
.:0.:0.0::00 038-50: 30: :0. 0:0 00:53 0:90:80 0:0
.0m.< :0: 500: .N 9:05; 02:50: :05 58505 0:05 0:0 50:55:05
.0mZ :0: 0>0E0~. .. :0 80:00 0:00:00: E00: 50: . 0:00:85 0:0 00:53 0:50.505 .mN< I 0:.0>
050:? :0 :00m0l0 5:50:50:
000::0>0 003 m bomo000 .v
w5:00:00.0 :80 0.000 5000. .m
$50.03 :0 60:00 5:30:50:
.b.0:0> 0.000 9:00: :0 50:5
:0 0:00:00 00:50:50 03:00-:005 00550303 .N
0:0 58:00 05 0: 00005.: 9:0:03 :0 80:00 0:00:00: .:00_:05< 0005.550: 0 E05
0:5:00 0: 0:0 0>050M .. 5.00.0500 .80750: 30: .. 0: :0:0::0 :5 00.: 0.:03 : .vm< 0w0.::02 I 0:.0>
0 .:00.:0E< 000550
-:0: 0 905 0: 00.: 0.:03 : .mN<
.0m< :0: mm< 3:0 580.: .m 500000
.0mZ :0: $0 80:50 :0 50:0: 0 >505
050: 00:5 000:: :0 5000: .N :0: 000::0>0 003 m b0w0u00 .N 0: 50.50 >5 00.: 0503 : 4&0

0:390:50 5 0>:
0:3 05050.52. 0050::

.—

9:0..0> :0 «00:00 0:30:50:
5:80:85 :05 0.000 503:

 

500000 30:50

:0 80:00. 0 E05 0: 00:. 0.:03 . .mm0

09:50:). I 0:.0>

 

 

:0.:0< 00030::

 

05030::

 

0050:

50500

 

 

 

002.508: 2% 030.0

143

Appendix B

Figures

' w ‘ u l $19 “at
N‘Aéﬁﬁ‘lﬁ 161‘} gﬁlﬁl“%ﬁlﬁlﬁﬂl\
k‘ﬂb “iii-l“ \ ‘u‘w all!“ NW“

‘ silo
Null 1N” “I m H ‘tl‘
‘9 NW” ll“ ”052131“ 4|“ M‘liwl llﬂml N“ ”Ml

ml .‘U

 

 

 

Preservation of Assimilation to the
Culture of Origin: ‘ new Culture:
Low Acculturation High Acculturation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure B]. The unidimensional model of acculturation.

 

Maintenance of the
culture of origin

I High l

 

 

 

 

Separation

 

 

Involvement in l _
the new culture LOW : 1 :

 

 

 

Marginalization Assimilation

 

Figure 32. The bidimensional model of acculturation.

144

dosﬁszzooa Mo 3on EmEoc-E=2 .mm Ezmi

++++++

scammaﬁdm 55885 €>co< 3:255
335/ 35:30 Bat/m 836A _ coon _ _ owmsmSﬁ— 12.233.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

soumeBEoolﬂ

     

145

 

Involvement in the
Chinese Culture

 
  
   

 

Scores on the two

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm
d1mens1ons won’t be High “‘evgi‘éswﬂhﬁk ,9“ WW _‘
perfectly negatively clpmpqsite \dl‘ ‘11“ 1
correlated. 1 Mb ,d‘lmlqn?10w

‘ 11 “y” ”‘1‘ ”2‘.“ I” l N1 NU"
Separation Integratlon
71 """ :

Involvement in ;
the American Low ‘ :t‘ J[ ngh I
Culture

Margmalizatlon Assimilation

I” LOW \\

 
   
 

Acculturation

 

lLanguage H Food I Leisure

Ethnic
Activity

Cultural
Interaction

Participation

++++++

Figure B4. Internal model of the MCAM

 

 

 

Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The superﬁcial level The intermediate level The signiﬁcant
of changes: such as of changes: such as level of changes:
learning and forgetting language use and such as beliefs,
Mar in’s of historical facts and preference, degree of values, and norms.
traditions, and interaction within ethnic
Model changing diet to and dominant societies,
include food from the and environmental
dominant society. preferences (e.g., media)
Beginning of .
Acculturation Overtime

 

\\\

ICC Dimension

for NBC

MCAM —

 

\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IAC Dimension

for NBC

MCAM —

ICC Dimension

for ABC

MCAM -

IAC Dimension

for ABC

 

| Language l Food Values Ethnic Cultural Leisure

Interaction Participation Activity

| Language | Leisure Ethnic lFood' Cultural l Values I
Activity Interaction Participation

 

 

 

\\

 

 

 

/

L

/l V

 

‘ Food | Ethnic | Language |
Interaction

Values

[:/'

 

Leisure Cultural
Activity Participation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food

I Language II |

 

Participation

Leisure
Activity

Cultural

 

 

 

 

 

Ethnic l Values |
Interaction

Figure B5. A comparison of Marin’s (1992) model and the developmental model of the

MCAM.

147

.252 as ,6 388 3825 2? em 25»;

 

 

$533
303 Eomwo—oﬁxmm 12563on 9:53
wqﬁoum @5331 325:3 wﬁoméoa Homwoﬁonoxmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ﬂ Goﬂmgxﬂooxx I‘l/ Amic ﬂoﬁaoﬁwm we Goﬂaood
SC bane:
30v :ocmooq EoEmﬁwooO

2330 03:20 2330 285:2
05 8 2:8me 2: 8 oSmoaxm

/ »

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abﬁomﬁob 8 “soﬁgomv Add .w.D 05 E 8533M mo ”tween“
as: @302 _ :8 £52 enamel—A. 20$ sesamﬁé ac om<

 

 

Amov £58m 38:80:00

j sane; ~23 #3365 _ jﬁﬁa> E3 955 _

 

 

 

 

148

 

Conﬁdence Bands

 

Score In Logit

 

 

 

Figure B 7. The 68% conﬁdence bands for each score estimate for the MCAM-C

subscale.

 

Conﬁdence Bands

 

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Score In Loglt

 

 

 

Figure B8. The 68% conﬁdence bands for each score estimate for the MCAM-A

subscale.

149

 

 

+Values
—a1— Ethnic Interaction

 

 

 

2
E -B- CuItural Participation
8 + Food
-0— Leisure Activity
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -o.5 o 0.5 —I— Language
Item Difﬁculty In logits on MCAM-C 0 Mean

 

 

 

 

Figure B9. NBC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the

MCAM-C subscale.

 

 

—lll— Values
+ Ethnic Interaction

 

 

g —9— Cultural Participation
E +Food
8 + Leisure Activity
—I— Language
0 Mean

 

-2 -1.5 -1 -o.5 o 0.5 1 1.5
Item Difﬁctu in logits on MCAM-A

 

 

 

Figure BIO. NBC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the

MCAM-A subscale.

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ Values
H—x -A-— Ethnic Interaction
é IE—EB-E-EHJ —5— Cultural Participation
g A—O—A + Food
D ’——e"*’ + Leisure Activity
. . . . y r -—l— Language
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 O 0.5 1 1.5 0 Mean
Item Difficulty in logits on MCAM-C

 

 

 

Figure B] I. ABC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the

MCAM-C subscale.

 

 

 
 

 

    
 
    
    

—)t£— Values
+ Ethnic Interaction

11111?m 1.1111111 111111-
'11‘1111“.}111‘1‘..m11““

 
      
 
 
 

  
 

       
     
 
 
 

  

        

   
    

 

 

E ...,...“ 11‘ +Cultural Participation
g 1“.‘;11“‘...:.11.‘.‘ "ﬂ... '1‘“ I.“..‘:l.111.1.",w . _ +Food
8 . 1‘“ ...111- 111111“ 1““ .1. “1““. .111“ M11111 “1““ h...“ 111 1'“ ...11‘!“ ......11 11““‘“ +Leisure Activity
‘ ......1 111.!!!“ ‘“J......1111111‘1“““ “.111!!!“ ....1!‘!“.......1!!! —I—Language
“‘H 11 “!!“ i |!!!““‘ 1 \‘!!!“““~ “““Ji . 0 Mean

     

 
   

 
  
  

 

 

-3 -2. 5 -2 —1. 5 -1 -0. 5 0 0.5
Item Difﬁculty In logits on MCAM-A

 

 

 

Figure B12. ABC’s item endorsabilities hierarchy across acculturation domains on the

MCAM-A subscale.

151

 

0-3 1 l Permanent
1;] Temporary
[1 Undecided

 

 

 

Logit
b
I\)

  

 

 

MCAM-C MCAM-A
MCAM Subscale

Figure 813. Group means on the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the three

mobility groups.

0.5 -
0.4 ~
0.3 —
0.2 —

 

I Northeast
I Southeast
0 11 3 Midwest
MCAM-C MCAM-A 1 In Southwest
El West

0.1 ~

Logit

-0.1 A

 

 

 

-0.2

‘
-O.3 .
-0.4 1

 

-0.5 ~
MCAM Subscale

Figure 314. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the ﬁve

groups that lived in different regions of the US.

152

0.5 -

0.4 -
MCAM-C MCAM-A

 

I Urban
. a Suburban
1:] Rural

 

Logit

 

 

 

 

-0.4 a
-0.5 4

 

NBAM Subscale

Figure 315. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the three

neighborhood types.

 

0.8

0.6 I U.S.

0-4 D Home Comtry
0.2

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-O.8

 

 

 

Logit

 

   

MCAM Subscale

Figure BI 6. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across the two

groups that received the majority of their education at different locations.

153

 

I Chinese-
Identiﬁed

EIChinese-
American-
Identiﬁed
DAmerican-
, - V Identiﬁed

    

 

 

 

 

 

MCAM-C MCAM-A
MCAM Subscale

Figure BI 7. Group means of the MCAM-C and MCAM-A subscales across groups of

different ethnic identity.

 

I Integrative
Separation
El Assimilation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life Satisfaction Hopkins Symptom
Checklist

Psychological Well-Being Measures

Figure BI8. Group means of the psychological well-being (PWB) measures across

groups using different acculturation approaches.

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The superﬁcial level The intermediate level The signiﬁcant level
Beginning of .
Acculturation Overtime

 

 

[N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ICGoDigiélgion Language Ethnic Cultural Leisure Values
Interaction Participation Activity
MCAM—
IAC Dimension
for NBC A
Language Leisure Ethnic Cultural Food Values
Activity Interaction Participation
MCAM-
ICC Dimension
for ABC
Food Ethnic Values Cultural Leisure Language
Interaction Participation Activity

MCAM—
IAC Dimension
for ABC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leisure

 

 

 

 

Activity

 

 

Food

 

 

 

 

Participation

Cultural

 

 

Figure BI 9. A reﬁned developmental model of the MCAM.

155

 

Ethnic
Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Initial 60 Items of the MCAM and Their Corresponding Processes and Domains

 

Process: Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domain Items
L 1. How well can you read Chinese?
L 2. How well can you read English?
L 3. How well can you write Chinese?
L 4. How well can you write English?
L 5. How well can you speak Chinese or a Chinese dialect (Mandarin,
Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc.)?
L 6. How well can you speak English?
L 7. How familiar are you with Chinese idioms or slang?
L 8. How familiar are you with English idioms or slang?
LA 9. How familiar are you with Chinese celebrities, professional sports
players, writers, and artists, etc.?
LA 10. How familiar are you with American celebrities, professional sports
players, writers, and artists etc.?
E1 11. Do you know how to interact with Chinese appropriately?
EI 12. Do you know how to interact with American appropriate?
CP 13. How familiar are you with the background history of Chinese
holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?
CP 14. How familiar are you with the background history of American

 

holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?

 

Process: Behavioral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domain « . Items
L 15. How often do you use Chinese or a Chinese dialect (Mandarin,
Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc.) (reading/writing/listening/speaking
combined)?
L 16. How often do you use English (reading/writing/listening/speaking
combined)?

LA 17. Do you watch Chinese movies/T V programs?

LA 18. Do you watch American movies/TV programs?

LA 19. Do you listen to Chinese music?

LA 20. Do you listen to American music?

LA 21. Do you engage in Chinese ways of leisure activities other than
watching movie/TV programs or listening to music? (e.g., playing
Ma-Jiag)?

LA 22. Do you engage in Chinese ways of leisure activities other than
watching movie/TV programs or listening to music? (e.g., going to
bars)?

F 23. Do you eat Chinese food at home?
F 24. Do you eat Chinese food in restaurants?
F 25. Do you eat American food at home?

 

156

 

Appendix C (Continued)

 

Process: Behavioral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domain Items
F 26. Do you eat American food in restaurants?
EI 27. Do you associate with Chinese or peOple with Chinese descent?
EI 28. Do you associate with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian
ethnic groups?
CP 29. Do you follow news in China, Taiwan, Singapore, or other countries
of Chinese origin?
CP 30. Do you follow news in the United States?
CP 31. Do you participate in Chinese holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?
CP 32. Do you participate in American holidays, traditions, and occasions,
etc?
CP 33. Are you afﬁliated with a Chinese or Taiwanese organization?
CP 34. Are you afﬁliated with an American organization?
V 35. Do you have a Chinese way of living style?
V 36. Do you have an American way of living style?
Process: Attitudinal ‘
Domain , . Items
LA 37. Do you enjoy Chinese ways of entertainments or leisure activities
(including watching movie/T V programs, listening to music, and
playing Ma—Jiag, etc.)?
LA 38. Do you enjoy American ways of entertainments or leisure activities
(including' watching movie/TV programs, listening to music, and
£0ng to bar, etc.)??
F 39. Do 10!] like Chinese food?
F 40. Do you like American food?
F 41. Do you dress in Chinese ways?
F 42. Do you dress in American ways?
F 43. Do you decorate your home in Chinese ways?
F 44. Do you decorate your home in American ways?
El 45. Do you enjoy associatirﬁwith people with Chinese descent?
EI 46. Do you enjoy associating with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other
non-Asian ethnic groups?
El 47. Do you feel uncomfortable when interacting with people with
Chinese descent?
El 48. Do you feel uncomfortable when interacting with Anglos, Blacks,
Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups?
B] 49. Would you view someone of Chinese descent as your role model?
El 50. Would you view an American person as your role model?
CP 51. Do you like practices and customs commonly found in Chinese
culture?
CP 52. Do you like practices and customs commonly found in American

 

culture?

 

157

 

Appendix C (Continued)

 

Process: Attitudinal

 

Domain

Items

 

CP

53.

Do you enjoy participating in Chinese holidays, traditions, and
occasions, etc?

 

CP

54.

Do you enjoy participating in American holidays, traditions, and
occasions, etc?

 

55.

Do you agree with Chinese value system (e.g., about marriage, families,
education, work, etc.)?

 

56.

Do you agree with American value system (e.g., about marriage,
families, education, work, etc.)?

 

57.

Do you have difﬁculty accepting some beliefs held by Chinese?

 

58.

Do you have difﬁculty accepting some beliefs held by Americans?

 

59.

Do you disagree with some behaviors exhibited by Chinese?

 

 

<<<< < <

 

60.

Do you disagree with some behaviors exhibited by Americans?

 

Note. L = language; F = food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural

participation; V = values.

158

 

Appendix D
A Description of the Pilot Study
Sample and Administration Procedures

The 56-items on the MCAM were pilot tested with a sample of 54 people (23 men
and 31 women). Participants were recruited through personal connections in the Midwest
and the East Coast and e-mail advertisements in a large Midwestern university. Interested
participants completed the self-report MCAM and a demographic questionnaire. Table
Bl summarizes the descriptive statistics of the sample’s age, length of stay in the U.S.,
and the obtained scores on both subscales of the MCAM. Eleven (20.4%), 4 (7.4%), 28
(51.9%), and 11(20.4%)3 participants were born in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the
U.S., respectively. With regard to marital status, 34 (63%) were single, 17 (31.5%) were
married, 2 (3.7%)3 had domestic partners, and 1 participant did not disclose his/her
marital status. Twenty-eight (52 %) participants had a graduate level degree, 14 (26%)
had a bachelor’s degree, and 12 (22%) were currently enrolled in college. The
distribution of participants’ annual household income was as follows: below $20,000 (N
= 16; 29.6%), $20,001—40,000 (N = 2; 3.7%), and $80,001 and above (N = 35; 64.8%);
one participant (1.9%)3 failed to indicate his income.
Table D1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Age, Length of Stay in the U.S., and the

MCAM Subscale Scores in the Pilot Study Sample

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Range
Age 28.46 7.23 18—51
Months in the US 116.41 104.48 6—372
MCAM-C 3 .68 .62 1.79—4.64
MCAM-A 3.29 .61 2.21—4.57

 

159

Analyses and Results

Model
The Rasch Rating Scale model (RSM, Wright & Masters, 1982) was employed to

scale the Likert-type responses on each subscale of the MCAM. The RSM describes the
epo(t9n — 6,. — 2'1.)
:0

.l
iexp:(6n — 6i '— Tj)
k=0 1:0

 

probability, ”nix : , that a speciﬁc respondent n will rate on a

particular item i with a speciﬁc rating scale category x. In the model, 0,, represents person
n’s acculturation level, 5; represents item i’s endorsability, and rj represents the rating
category threshold between category x and category x + 1. Each subscale contains three
different 5-point rating scales (i.e., ability, frequency, and agreeability) and each rating
scale has a unique assumed structure. Speciﬁcally, it is assumed that the distance between
each category threshold is constant across items within the same rating scale. The
WINSTEPS (Linacre, 2002b) software package was used to estimate the parameters in
the model. Parameter estimates are reported on a single linear continuum in logistic odds
ratio units (logits) (E. V. Smith, 2000).
Rating Scales

The utilities of the three rating scales (i.e., ability, frequency, and agreement)
were evaluated separately according to Linacre’s (2002a) guidelines (refer to the analyses
section of this paper for details). The evaluation addressed the structural aspect of validity
(Messick, 1995) for the MCAM. The results for each subscale are discussed separately.

MCAM-A. Across the three rating scales, all the categories have more than 10

observations except for category 1 in the ability rating scale. The items in this rating scale

160

ask for participants to rate their ability in English language and their familiarity with
American celebrities and holidays. Since the instrument was written in English and all the
participants have at least college level education, it is expected that they know some
English and are familiar with some American celebrities and holidays. Therefore, this
result may be just a reﬂection of sample bias rather than the ineffectiveness of this
category. Should the sample have included individuals with lower levels of education and
residence primarily in Chinatowns—where learning English is not essential for
survival—the frequency in this category would have increased.

The distributions of ratings across the three rating scales were generally unimodal.
Average measures advance monotonically with category across the three rating scales. In
other words, respondents with higher total scores within each rating scale chose higher
categories and vice versa as expected. All but one of the outfit indices of the rating scales
were less than 2.0 for each category, ensuring that the rating scales were used in the way
they were intended to be used. The probability characteristic curves (PCC) of the rating
scales demonstrated that each category is in turn most probable. Moreover, the category
thresholds generally increase more than 1.0 logits and less than 5 logits, indicating that
the number of categories is precise enough and each category has adequate utility.

In terms of coherence across the three scales, with the exception of category 1 in
both ability and frequency rating scales, measures adequately imply categories with the
percentage of ratings in their predicted categories ranging from 37% to 100%. Similarly,
across the three scales, with the exception of category 1, categories adequately implied
measures with the percentage of rating in their predicted zones ranging 31% to 66%.

Category 1 might have been problematic because the measures tended not to imply the

161

categories and the categories tended not to imply measures. This might again relate to the
fact that the sample did not include low acculturated individuals who likely would have
used category 1. The utility of category 1 needs to be further examined by including such
populations in future studies.

MCAM-C. The results of the three rating scales were similar to those in the
MCAM-A subscale, indicating the rating scales were effective. However, there was one
problem with the ability rating scale. Speciﬁcally, the respondents seemed to underuse
categories 3 and 4 and overuse category 5. Moreover, several category thresholds did not
increase more than 1.0 logits in the ability and frequency rating scales. These results
suggested that the rating scale might have contained more categories than necessary.
Since this study only included 54 subjects, a further investigation of the utility of this
rating scale with a larger sample is necessary. The coherences across the three scales
were less strong than those of the MCAM-A subscale. For the ability, frequency, and
agreeability rating scales, 5, 5, and 4 coherences were less than 40%, respectively.
Dimensionality

A principal component analysis was performed to evaluate the dimensionality of
the MCAM following Linacre’s (1998) recommendation. This procedure evaluated the
structural aspect of validity (Messick, 1995) for the MCAM. An investigation of the item
loadings of the ﬁrst residual component revealed that the MCAM is bidimensional. As
expected, items that exhibited high positive loadings on this component were associated
with involvement of the American culture whereas items that exhibited high absolute
negative loadings on that component were associated with involvement in the Chinese

culture. This bipolarity astoundingly supported the contemporary bidimensional view of

162

acculturation described earlier, and thus yielded support for the structural aspect of
validity for the MCAM.
Fit

Item ﬁt indices were calculated for the Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM) (Wright
& Masters, 1982). Item ﬁt indices help conﬁrm whether the items evoke and deﬁne the
variable intended to be measured (E.V. Smith, 2001), and thus address the content aspect
of validity (Messick, 1995). According to Wright and Linacre’s (1994) suggestion, items
with ﬁt indices larger than 1.4 were considered misﬁt (i.e., the responses of the item are
inconsistent with the model’s expectation) and examined for possible explanation or
modiﬁcation. Point polyserial correlations between each item score and the total
instrument score were calculated to evaluate whether participants’ rank ordering on the
item was similar to their rank ordering on the composite of the remaining items. This also
addressed the content aspect of validity for the MCAM (Messick, 1995). A low
correlation (i.e., r < .30) indicates the item may not truly capture the underlying variable
in the same way as other items. The slopes of the item characteristic curve at the point of
inﬂection were also estimated by the Rasch model. The slopes of all items were
examined to ensure they were comparable as the Rasch model suggested, thus supporting
the structural aspect of validity for the MCAM (Messick, 1995).

In the MCAM-A subscale, 3 items (11%) exhibit misﬁt, 5 items (18%) exhibit
low or negative item-total correlations, and 5 items (18%) seem to be outliers on the
slope index. Table B2 summarizes these items’ estimated ﬁt indices, item-total
correlation, and slopes. All three items that exhibit misﬁt are negatively-worded and were

reversed coded (i.e., a rating of 5 was coded as l, a rating of 1 was coded as 5, etc.).

163

Negatively-worded items often exhibit misﬁt because they require respondents some
extra mental effort to reverse the wording of the item. Therefore, these misﬁts might be a
result of respondents’ carelessness (R. M. Smith, 2000). Items 24 and 25 appeared to be
most problematic because they also exhibited extremely low correlations and distinct
slopes, suggesting that these two items might not be measuring the intended construct.
Interestingly, the items corresponding to these two items in the MCAM-C subscale also
exhibited similar patterns on these indices (see Table B3). Perhaps these two items do not
depict one’s acculturation level, but only capture whether the respondents are critical or
tolerant of other people’s behaviors and beliefs regardless their ethnicity. Moreover, the
use of the word “some” might make these two items easy to endorse for both high and
low acculturated individuals since it is common for people to dislike or disapprove
“some” behaviors or beliefs of others. To adjust to these problems, item 25 was modiﬁed
to “I dislike Americans’ behaviors” and item 24 was modiﬁed to “I disapprove of
American beliefs.” The corresponding items in the MCAM-C were also modiﬁed
accordingly.

Item 28 in the MCAM-A subscale also exhibited serious problems in reference to
its low correlation and distinct slope. This item was intended to tap into the idea of
individualism (i.e., one’s wishes and interests are more important than society’s and
groups’ wishes and interests). However, the item corresponding to this item in the
MCAM-C subscale (which was intended to tap into “collectivism”) did go; exhibit
similar problems (see Table B3). It is noteworthy that item 28 in the MCAM-A subscale
was negatively-worded but the corresponding item in the MCAM-C subscale was not.

Furthermore, the wordings of item 28 might actually capture “disagreement with

164

collectivism” rather than “individualism.” Therefore, item 28 was changed to

“Individual’s wishes and interests are more important than family’s and society’s wishes

and interests.”

Table D2

Estimations of F it Indices for Problematic Items in the MCAM-A Subscale

 

 

Item Outﬁt Inﬁt Item-total Slope
index index correlation

19. I feel Ecomfortable when interacting with 2.28a 1.73 a .25” .84
Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-
Asian ethnic groups.

25. I do NOT like some behaviors exhibited 1.66 a 1.65 a -.02 b .03c
by Americans.

28. A person should NOT compromise his/her 1.50 a 1.50 a .06 b .69c
wishes or interests for the wishes/interests
of the group.

24. I have d_ifficulg accepting some beliefs 1.36 1.36 .22 b .56 °
held by Americans.

27. I would like my children to marry a non— 1.21 1.19 .00 b .95 °
Chinese American.

20. I view an American person as my role 1.08 1.13 .54 .72 °
model.

22. In general, my living style is pretty 1.05 1.08 .82 1.46 c

American.

Note. aFit indices are greater than 1.4.51tem-total correlations are smaller than .3. cSlopes

are one standard deviation greater or smaller than the mean.

165

Table D3

Estimations of F it Indices for Problematic Items and Item 28 in the MCAM-C Subscale

 

 

Item Outﬁt Inﬁt Item-total Slope
index index correlation
25. I do NOT like some behaviors exhibited 1.34 1.31 .25" .2c
by Chinese.
24. I have difﬁculg accepting some beliefs 1.97a 1.483 .23 b .30 °
held by Americans.
28. A person should compromise his/her .89 .86 .52 .90

wishes or interests for the
wishes/interests of the group.

 

Note. aFit indices are greater than 1.4. bItem-total correlations are smaller than .3. °Slopes

are one standard deviation greater or smaller than the mean.

Reliability

Reliabilities of both MCAM-A and MCAM-C subscales were evaluated through
person separation reliability coefficient and precision (i.e., the examination of the
magnitudes of logit standard errors) for each person (E.V. Smith, 2001). These two
indices helped evaluate the generalizability aspect of validity (Messick, 1995). A
reliability of 1 represents perfect consistency and reliability greater than .9 is desirable.
Person precision refers to the consistency of the rank ordering of an individual participant

from one context to another. The standard error of the parameter estimate for each
person’s acculturation level (SE9) was computed to depict the range of parameter values

that could have produced the observed parameter estimate. Person precision was then
evaluated via creating 95% conﬁdence intervals around each person’s observed

parameter estimate. Table B4 summarizes the calculated person separation reliability

166

coefﬁcients, largest and smallest standard errors of the parameter estimate, and range of
width of the 95% conﬁdence intervals for both subscales. The results indicated strong
reliabilities for both subscales. The conﬁdence intervals for most participants were no
more than one logit, suggesting adequate precision in depicting each participant’s true
acculturation level (E.V. Smith, 2001).

Table D4

Person separation reliability coefﬁcients, standard errors of the parameter estimate, and

range of width of the 95 % conﬁdence intervals for the MCAM—A and the MCAM-C

 

 

MCAM-A MCAM-C
Person Separation Reliability Coefﬁcients .92 .90
Largest SE63 32a 34a
Smallest SIZE .22 a .19”1
Range of Width of the Conﬁdence Bands .86 a—1.26 a .74 al—1.34 a

 

Note. 3”These values are in logits.
Differential item ﬁmctioning (DIF)

Items were examined for potential bias using the Rasch differential item
functioning (DIF) procedure to detect whether respondents in different demographic
groups who have the same levels of acculturation have different probabilities of
answering a particular item in a certain way. This procedure served to evaluate the
generalizability aspect of validity (Messick, 1995). Speciﬁcally, two demographic
variables—gender and country of birth (i.e., American-born Chinese participants [ABC]
vs. native-born Chinese participants [NBC]) were examined. DIF procedure was
performed using WINSTEPS computer software (Linacre, 2002b) with the following
steps: 1) item responses for each group were scaled separately to logit units, 2) item

difﬁculties were standardized to ensure that the mean and standard deviation of the item

167

difﬁculties are the same for each group, and 3) the effect size between an item’s difﬁculty

for the two groups was then computed for each item via the SAI index,

SAI = 5, afocala with female and NBC as reference groups and male and ABC

eference _

as focal groups (Raju, 1988, as cited in Clauser & Mazor, 1998). An item was identiﬁed
as exhibiting DIF if the absolute SAI index was larger than .50 logits (Clauser & Mazor,
1998). These items were then scrutinized for substantive explanations.

Gender. Only 4 items (14%) in the MCAM-A subscale and 3 items (11%) in the
MCAM-C subscale exhibited DIF when comparing item difﬁculties for female and male
participants. It is noteworthy that most of the effect sizes were only slightly larger than
.50 and not statistically signiﬁcant (IZSAII < 1.96). The only item that exhibited a
signiﬁcant difference for men and women was item 14 in the MCAM-C subscale: “Do
you follow news related to China, Taiwan, Singapore, or other countries of Chinese
origin?” This difference might just be a manifestation that men tend to be more interested
in news than women. Nevertheless, the MCAM is generally unbiased for different
genders.

ABC versus NBC. Conversely, 16 items (57%) in both subscales exhibited DIF
when comparing item difﬁculties for ABC and NBC participants when acculturation
level was controlled for. According to Penﬁeld and Lam (2000), one possible explanation
for this result is the existence of multidimensionality in the MCAM. In other words,
MCAM not only reliably differentiates between those who have higher or lower levels of
acculturation, but also reliably differentiates ABC and NBC. In fact, this result may
support Benet-Martinez et al.’s (2002) conceptualization that the structure of the

acculturation construct is different for ABC and NBC. Speciﬁcally, Benet-Martinez et al.

168

proposed that ABC may perceive Chinese and American cultures as compatible and
integrated whereas NBC may perceive the two cultures as oppositional and difﬁcult to
integrate. They further proposed that when culture-related materials are presented, ABC
tend to respond in a culturally congruent way whereas NBC tend to react in a culturally
incongruent way. For example, when items like those of the MCAM-A cueing American
cultures are presented, for individuals with same level of acculturation, ABC may feel
comfortable endorsing them whereas NBC may feel that they need to respond against
them. However, this interpretation needs to be veriﬁed by further studies replicating these
procedures with a larger sample size.
Structural Aspect of Validity

For further validation in the structural aspect (Messick, 1995), item endorsabilities
were compared to a priori expectations for the relative ordering of items in the MCAM-A
subscale. Speciﬁcally, it was hypothesized that the items in the language and food
domains would be easiest to endorse, followed by the items in the leisure activity, ethnic
interaction, and cultural participation domains, and the items in the values domain would
be the hardest to endorse. This hypothesis was evaluated by looking at the relative
locations of items that fell into these domains on the underlying continuum. F rom the
external aspect of validation, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare
ABC’s acculturation level with NBC’s acculturation level (as estimated by RSM in
logits). It is expected that ABC’s acculturation level would be higher than NBC’s
acculturation level.

Figure Bl plots endorsabilities of the items tapping the same domain of

acculturation. The relative ordering was generally consistent with the hypothesis, thus

169

supporting the structural validity of the MCAM-A. The respondents found the items in
the language domains were the easiest to endorse whereas items in the values domain
were the most difﬁcult to endorse. The items in the domain of leisure activity, ethnic
interaction, and cultural participation were at the moderate level of endorsability.
Surprisingly, the respondents found the items in the food domain more difﬁcult to
endorse than expected. One possible explanation for this result is that Chinese food is
readily available where participants live so there’s no need to adapt to American food. In
fact, this may be the current situation in the US. where Chinese restaurants and grocery
stores can be found in urban,-suburban, and even rural settings. Consequently, current
immigrants may not need to change their diet to survive in the US.
External Aspect of Validity

As expected, an independent sample t-test revealed that ABC’s acculturation level
(N = 11, Mean = .20, SD =.70) on the MCAM-A subscale is statistically signiﬁcantly
higher (I = -5.28, p < .001) than NBC’s acculturation level (N = 43, Mean = 1.50, SD =
.74). Another independent sample t-test also showed that ABC’s acculturation level
(Mean = -0.07, SD = .70) on the MCAM-C subscale is statistically signiﬁcantly lower (t
= 5.11, p < .001) than NBC’s acculturation level (Mean = 1.07, SD = .74). These results

yielded evidence in support of the external aspect of validity for the MCAM-A.

170

Figure DI. Item endorsabilities of each acculturation domains

 

Domain

 

 

 

 

 

7
6 . Hare—1H:
5 -« A—e—A
4 . G—E———-E€-B-—B—El
3 . A—e—A—A
2 — o—o—+9—o——o
1 , l—I—I-a—I
-1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Item leﬂculty In Logit:

1.6

 

 

+ Values
+ Food
-B- Cultural Participation
+ Ethnic Interaction
+ Leisure Activity
—l— Language

0 mean

 

 

171

 

 

Appendix E
Multidimensional Chinese Acculturation Measure (MCAM)
MCAM-Involvement in the Chinese Culture Subscale (MCAM-C)

Directions: Use the following scale to rate each item that best ﬁt your CURRENT
situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ............. 2 ............. 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Not at all Extremely
P D
K L 1 How well can you read Chinese? 1 2 3 4 5
K L 2. How well can you write Chinese? 1 2 3 4 5
K L 3. How well can you speak Chinese or a Chinese dialect l 2 3 4 5
(Mandarin, Taiwanese, CantOnese, etc.)?
K L 4 How familiar are you with Chinese idioms or slang? l 2 3 4 5
K LA 5. How familiar are you with Chinese celebrities, l 2 3 4 5
professional sports players, writers, and artists, etc.?
K CP 6. How familiar are you with the background histOry of 1 2 3 4 5
Chinese holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?

 

Directions: Use the following frequency scale to rate each item that best ﬁt your

 

 

CURRENT situation.
1 ................ 2 .......... - ...... 3. .; ............. 4 ................ 5
Almost Never Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Always
P D
B L 7. How often do you use Chinese or a Chinese dialect 1 2 3 4 5

(Mandarin, Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc.)
(reading/writing/listening/speaking combined)?

 

LA 8. Do you watch Chinese movies/TV programs? 1 2 3 4 5

 

LA 9. Do you listen to Chinese music? 1 2 3 4 5

 

LA 10. Do you engage in Chinese ways of leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5
other than watching movie/TV programs or listening
to music? (e.g., playing Ma-Jiag, Practicing Tai-chi)?

 

F l 1. Do you eat Chinese food at home? 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

F 12. Do you eat Chinese food in restaurants? 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

I72

 

 

 

 

B El 13. Do you associate with Chinese or people of Chinese 1 2 3 4 5
descent?

B CP 14. Do you follow news related to China, Taiwan, 1 2 3 4 5
Singapore, or other countries of Chinese origin?

B CP 15. Do you participate in Chinese holidays, traditions, and l 2 3 4 5

 

 

occasions, etc. (e.g., Chinese New Year, Moon
Festival)?

 

 

 

Directions: Use the following scale to rate how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements CURRENTLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ................... 2 ................... 3 ................... 4 ................... 5
Strengly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Mixed Agree Strongly Agree
P D >
A LA 16. I enjoy Chinese ways of entertainments or leisure 1 2 3 4 5
v activities (including watching mOVie/TV programs,
listening to music, playing Ma-Jiag, practicing Tai-chi,
etc. ).
A F 17. I lit; Chinese food. ‘ . . l 2 3 4 5
A El 18. I enjoy associating with people with Chinese descent. 1 2 3 4 5
A El 19. I feel uncomfortable when interacting with people 1 2 3 4 5
with Chinese descent. ~
A El 20. I view someone of Chinese descent as my role model. 1 2 3 4 5
A CP 21. l l_il_<_e_ practices and customs commonly found in 1 2 3 4 5
Chinese culture (e.g., ways of socialization, money
spending, tip giving habits, ways to treat elders,
communication style).
CP 22. In general, my living style is very Chinese. 1 2 3 4 5
V 23. I agree with the Chinese value system (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5
Confucianism, Taoism, or other values about marriage,
families, education, work, etc.).
A V 24. I have difﬁculg accepting beliefs held by Chinese. 1 2 3 4 5
A El 25. I do NOT like behaviors exhibited by Chinese. 1 2 3 4 5
A V 26. I would like to many a person of Chinese descent. 1 2 3 4 5
A V 27. I would like my children to marry a person of Chinese 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

173

 

descent.

 

 

 

A V 28. A person should compromise his/her wishes or 1 2 3 4 5
interests for the wishes/interests of the group.
K CP 29. I understand Chinese culture very well. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

MCAM-Involvement in the American Culture Subscale (MCAM-A)

Directions: Use the following scale to rate each item that best ﬁt your CURRENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

situation.
1 ............. 2 ............. 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Not at all Extremely
P D
K L 1. How well can you read English? 1 2 3 4 5
K L 2. How well can you write English? 1 2 3 4 5
K L 3. How well can you speak English? 1 2 3 4 5
K L 4. How familiar are you with English idioms or slang? 1 2 3 4 5
K LA 5. How familiar are you with American celebrities, 1 2 3 4 5
professional sports players, writers, and artists etc.?
K CP 6. How familiar are you with the background history of 1 2 3 4 5
American holidays, traditions, and occasions, etc?
Directions: Use the following frequency scale to rate each item that best ﬁt your
CURRENT situation.
1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 ................ 5
Almost Never Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Always
P D
B L 7. How often do you use English 1 2 3 4 5
(reading/writing/listening/speaking combined)?
LA 8. Do you watch American movies/TV programs? 1 2 3 4 5
LA 9. Do you listen to American music? 1 2 3 4 5
LA 10. Do you engage in American ways of leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5
other than watching movie/TV programs or listening
to music? (e.g., going to bars, going to football
games)?
B F 11. Do you eat American food at home? 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F 12. Do you eat American food in restaurants? 1 2 3 4 5

El 13. Do you associate with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or 1 2 3 4 5
other non-Asian ethnic groups?

CP 14. Do you follow news in the United States? 1 2 3 4 5

CP 15. Do you participate in American holidays, traditions, 1 2 3 4 5

 

and occasions, etc. (e.g., Thanksgiving, Halloween)?

 

 

Directions: Use the following scale to rate how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements CURRENTLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ................... 2 ................... 3 ................... 4 ................... 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/Mixed Agree Strongly Agree
P D
A LA 16. I enjoy American ways of entertainments or leisure 1 2 3 4 5
activities (including watching movie/TV programs,
listening to music, and going to bar, etc.).
A F 17. I liﬁ American food. 1 2 3 4 5
A El 18. I enjoy associating with Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or 1 2 3 4 5
other non-Asian ethnic groups.
A El 19. I feel geomfortable when interacting with Anglos, 1 2 3 4 5
Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups.
A El 20. I view an American person as my role model. 1 2 3 4 5
A CP 21. I li_k§ practices and customs commonly found in 1 2 3 4 5
American culture (e. g., ways of socialization, money
spending, tip giving habits, ways to treat elders,
communication style).
CP 22. In general, my living style is very American. 2 3 4 5
V 23. I agree with the American value system (e.g., 2 3 4 5
individualism, or other values about marriage,
families, education, work, etc.).
A V 24. I have difﬁculty accepting beliefs held by Americans. 2 3 4 5
A El 25. I do NOT like Americans’ behaviors. 2 3 4 5
A V 26. I would like to marry a non-Chinese American. 2 3 4 5
A V 27. I would like my children to marry a non-Chinese 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

175

 

 

 

American.

 

A V 28. Individual’s wishes and interests are more important 1 2 3 4 5
than family’s and society’s wishes and interests.

 

 

K CP 29. I understand American culture very well. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

Note. P = process the item represent; D = domain the item represents; L = language; F =
food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural participation; V =

values.

176

 

Appendix F

The Listservs of the Organizations Targeted for Recruiting Participants for This Study

PWSP‘MPP’NT‘

AMMWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNH—It—tu—Iu—nu—np—nu—Au—ap—
Ppwﬂ999WNﬁppﬁﬂngPN?PPWSQM¥WNfP

A. Chinese Community Organizations

80-20 Initiative at http://www.80-201nitiative.net/

ACON-JOBS Email Group http://wwwaconorg

Asian American Federation of New York

Asian American Institute

Asian American Institute at Chicago (wwwaaichicauoorg)
Asian American United

Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander Faculty/ Staff Association

Asian Americans for Community Outreach (AACO)

Asian Paciﬁc American Family Support Center

Asian Paciﬁc American Heritage Council Inc

Asian Paciﬁc American society

Asian-American Council

Association of Chinese Americans

Austin Society of Asian American Professionals at wwwasaapnet
CAPA Community Education Fund

Chinese American Association of Minnesota

Chinese American Citizens Alliance—Peninsula, CA

Chinese American Citizens Alliance—Phoenix

Chinese American Citizens Alliance—Tucson, AZ

Chinese American Civil Rights Organization

Chinese American Club of Southern California

Chinese American Cultural Association at http://uwwcacani .org/
Chinese American Cultural Center, CT

Chinese American Planning Counsel—Brooklyn

Chinese American Planning Counsel—Queens

Chinese Community Center at Houston, TX

Chinese Culture Center of San Francisco

Committee of 100, New York

Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, USA
Lehigh Valley Organization of Chinese Americans

National Association of Chinese Americans, GA

Networking Asians in Connecticut

North American Taiwanese Womens' Association Northern California
NYJPW Chinese American Arts & Culture Association, Inc.
Organization of Chinese Americans—Columbus

Organization of Chinese Americans—Greater Houston
Organization of Chinese Americans at OCA@OCANATL.ORG
Organization of Chinese Americans of Greater Cleveland (OCAGC)
Organization of Chinese Americans: Young Professionals
Society of Taiwanese Americans (SOTA) in Illinois

 

 

177

41. Society of Taiwanese Americans (SOTA) in New York
42. Springﬁeld Chinese American Association at Illinois
43. Taiwanese American Citizens League (TACL)

44. Temple City Chinese American Association, CA

45. The Asian-American Cultural Center in Austin, Texas
46. The Ohio Chinese American Professional Association
47. www.chinatownhi.com at Honolulu

B. Student Clubs, Organizations, or Asian Study Programs at the Following Universities
The student clubs, organizations, and Asian study programs includes Chinese
student associations, Taiwanese student associations, Chinese-American student

associations, Taiwanese-American student associations, Asian American student

associations, Asian/Paciﬁc/American studies programs, and alike.

1. American University

2. Auburn University

3. Bradley University

4. Brandeis University

5. Brown University

6. California Institute of Technology

7. California State University, Dominguez Hills
8. California State University, Fullerton

9. Carnegie Mellon University

10. Case Western Reserve University

1 1. Duke University

12. Federation of Taiwanese Student Associations in New York
13. Florida Institute of Technology

14. George Washington University

15. Georgia Institute of Technology

16. Harvard University

17. Idaho State University

18. Indiana University

19. Indiana-University Purdue-University at Indianapolis
20. Iowa State University

21. Loyola University Chicago

22. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

23. Michigan State University

24. Michigan Technological University

25. New York University

26. Northeastern University

27. Northwestern University

178

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.

Northwestern University

Ohio State University

Oregon State University

Penn State University

Purdue University

Rice University

San Francisco State University
San Jose State University

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
South Illinois University at Carbondale
Stanford University

Temple University

Texas A&M University
University of Akron

University of Arizona

University of Arkansas

University of California at Berkeley
University of California at Los Angeles
University of Chicago

University of Colorado, Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of Maryland
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri—Columbia
University of Montana

University of North Carolina
University of Ohio

University of Oregon

University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of South Carolina
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Texas at Austin
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin—Madison
University Pennsylvania

179

 

 

 

74.
75.
76.
77.

Wayne State University
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Wright State University

Yale University

180

Appendix G

Recruiting E-mail and Internet Advertisement

Greetings !

I am a doctoral student from Taiwan at Michigan State University. I am interested in
learning more about the acculturation processes of Chinese/Taiwanese and
Chinese/Taiwanese-Americans. I am asking for YOUR HELP to participate in my
research project. The participation will only take about 30 MINUTES!

The research participation will require you to complete a self-report survey. Your
participation will be anonymous. That is, I will never be able to associate your names
with your responses. You will be given $5 for your participation. A bank-issued check
will be mailed to you.

Eligibility:
1) You must be more than 18 years old and identify yourself as Chinese, Taiwanese,
Chinese-American, or Taiwanese-American.
2) You must currently reside in the United States.

Should you have any question regarding this study, pleas feel free to contact the
investigator, Pei-Chen Hsu, at 201-936-3359 or at hsupeicﬂﬁmisuedu. If you are
interested and willing to participate, please click the link below:

http:// www.msu.edu/~hsupeich/ survey

 

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT
BE INTERESTED IN THE STUDY.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

Sincerely,

Pei-Chen Hsu, MA.

PhD. Candidate

Counseling Psychology Program
435 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

E-mail: lisupeich@msu.edu

 

181

Appendix H

Informed Consent

Thank you for your interest in participating in this study of acculturation of
Chinese/Taiwanese and Chinese/Taiwanese-Americans. This research is being conducted
by Pei—Chen Hsu, a doctoral candidate in Counseling Psychology under the supervision
of Edward Wolfe, assistant professor in the Department of Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special Education at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,
48823.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the acculturation processes of
Chinese/Taiwanese and Chinese/Taiwanese-Americans. You are eligible to participate if
you currently live in the United States, are more than 18 years old, and identify yourself
as Chinese, Taiwanese, Chinese-American, or Taiwanese-American. Your participation
will require you to complete some self-report questionnaires that ask about your
behaviors and attitudes regarding Chinese and American cultures, how you were feeling
for the past seven days, what you think about seeking psychological help, and your
background information. It will take approximately 30 minutes for you to complete these
questionnaires.

In responding to the questionnaires, you might experience some mild distress as
thinking about your experiencesofjoggling between the Chinese and the US. culture.
However, I do not anticipate that the risk will be more than minimal. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your participation in this study
will be anonymous because I will never be able to associate your name with your
response. Results of this study will only be presented in group form and your name will
not appear in any reporting of my ﬁndings. Should you choose to participate, please
answer all questions as honestly‘as possible.

Your decision to participate in this study is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw
your consent, stop participation at any time, or refuse to answer any question without
penalty to you. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by clicking the
“agree and proceed” button below and completing the questionnaires. Please print out
this consent form for your own record. If you do not want to participate, you may simply
leave this site or close your browser. Upon completion, you will be directed to a separate
website where you may provide your name and address if you wish to receive $5 for your
participation. And bank-issued checks will be mailed to you. Because this is a different
website, I will not be able to associate you with your responses. Please note that you will
need to complete all the questionnaires, except for the demographic questionnaire, to be
eligible for the $5 reimbursement.

Thank you again for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not

hesitate to contact Pei-Chen Hsu, at 201-792-9160 (hsupeich@msu.edu) or Dr. Edward
Wolfe at 517-355-8538 (wolfee@msu.edu). If you have questions about your role and

182

rights as a participant in the study, you may contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State
University at (517) 355-2180 or at ucrihs@msu.edu. If you would like to know the results

of this study, please contact Pei-Chen Hsu at the phone number or e-mail address given
above.

183

Appendix I

The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA)

Directions: The following questions are for the purpose of collecting information about
your historical background as well as more recent behaviors, which may be related to

your cultural identity. You might ﬁnd these questions repetitive of those you already
answered above. However. the ways the questions are asked are different. So. please

choose the one answer that best describes you WITHOUT thinking about how you
answered earlier.

1.

 

What language can you speak?

1)

2)
3)
4)
5)

Asian only (for example, Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese,
etc.)

Mostly Asian, some English

Asian and English about equally well (bilingual)

Mostly English, some Asian

Only English

What language do you prefer?

1)

Asian only (for example, Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese,
etc.)

Mostly Asian, some English

Asian and English about equally well (bilingual)

Mostly English, some Asian

Only English

How do you identify yourself?

5)

Oriental

Asian

Asian-American

Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, Japanese-American, Vietnamese-
American, etc.

American

Which identiﬁcation does (did) your mother use?

1)

Oriental

Asian

Asian-American

Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, Japanese-American, Vietnamese-
American, etc.

American

184

10.

Which identiﬁcation does (did) your father use?

1) Oriental

2) Asian

3) Asian-American

4) Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, Japanese-American, Vietnamese-
American, etc.

5) American

What was the ethnic origin of the friends and peers you had, as a child up to age 6?
1) Almost exclusively Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

2) Mostly Asian, Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

3) About equally Asian groups and Anglo groups

4) Mostly Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

5) Almost exclusively Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

What was the ethnic origin of the ﬁiends and peers you had, as a child from 6 to 18?
1) Almost exclusively Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

2) Mostly Asian, Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

3) About equally Asian groups and Anglo groups

4) Mostly Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

5) Almost exclusively Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

Whom do you now associate with in the community?

1) Almost exclusively Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

2) Mostly Asian, Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

3) About equally Asian groups and Anglo groups

4) Mostly Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

5) Almost exclusively Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

If you could pick, whom would you prefer to associate within the community?

1) Almost exclusively Asians, Asian—Americans, Orientals

2) Mostly Asian, Asians, Asian-Americans, Orientals

3) About equally Asian groups and Anglo groups

4) Mostly Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

5) Almost exclusively Anglos, Blacks, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups

What is your music preference?

1) Only Asian music (for example, Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Japanese,
Vietnamese, etc.)

2) Mostly Asian

3) Equally Asian and English

4) Mostly English

5) English only

185

11. What is your movie preference?
1) Asian-language movies only
2) Asian-language movies mostly
3) Equally Asian/English
4) English-language movies mostly
5) English-language movies only

12. What generation best applies to you?

1) 1St Generation = I was born in Asia or other

2) 2"d Generation = I was born in U.S., either parent was born in Asia or other

3) 3rd Generation = I was born in U.S., both parents were born in U.S., and all
grandparents born in Asia or other

4) 4th Generation = I was born in U.S., both parents born in U.S., and at least on
grandparent born in Asia or other and one grandparent born in US.

5) 5th Generation = I was born in U.S., both parents and all grandparents also born in
US.

6) Don’t know what generation best ﬁts since I lack some information

7) Others, please explain

13. Where were you raised?
1) In Asia only
2) Mostly in Asia, some in US.
3) Equally in Asia and US.
4) Mostly in U.S., some in Asia
5) In US. only

14. What contact have you had with Asia?
1) Raised one year or more in Asia
2) Lived for less than one year in Asia
3) Occasional visits to Asia
4) Occasional communications (letters, phone calls, etc.) with people in Asia
5) No exposure or communications with people in Asia

15. What is your food preference at home?
1) Exclusively Asian food
2) Mostly Asian food, some American
3) About equally Asian and American
4) Mostly American food
5) Exclusively American food

16. What is your preference in restaurants?
1) Exclusively Asian food
2) Mostly Asian food, some American
3) About equally Asian and American
4) Mostly American food
5) Exclusively American food

186

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Do you

1) Read only an Asian language

2) Read an Asian language better than English
3) Read both Asian and English equally well
4) Read English better than Asian language

5) Read only English

Do you

1) Write only an Asian language

2) Write an Asian language better than English
3) Write both Asian and English equally well
4) Write English better than Asian language

5) Write only English

If you consider yourself a member of the Asian group (Oriental, Asian, Asian-
American, Chinese-American, etc., whatever term you prefer), how much pride do
you have in this group?

1) Extremely proud

2) Moderately proud

3) Little pride

4) No pride but do not feel negative toward group

5) No pride but do feel negative toward group

How would you rate yourself?
1) Very Asian

2) Mostly Asian

3) Bicultural

4) Mostly Westemized

5) Very Westernized

Do you participate in Asia occasions, holidays, traditions, etc.?
1) Nearly all

2) Most of them

3) Some of them

4) A few of them

5) Not at all

Rate yourself on how much you believe in Asian values (e.g., about marriage,
families, education, work):

(do not believe) 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly believe in Asian values)
Rate yourself on how much you believe in American (Western) values:

(do not believe) 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly believe in American [Western]
values)

Rate yourself on how well you ﬁt when with other Asians of the same ethnicity:

(do not ﬁt) 1 2 3 4 5 (ﬁt very well)

187

25. Rate yourself on how well you ﬁt when with other Americans who are non-Asian
(Westerners):

(do not ﬁt) 1 2 3 4 5 (ﬁt very well)

26. There are many different ways in which people think of themselves. Which ONE of
the following most closely describes how you view yourself?

1)

2)
3)
4)

5)

I consider myself basically an Asian person (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese, etc.). Even though I live and work in America, I still view myself
basically as an Asian person.

I consider myself basically as an American. Even though I have an Asian
background and characteristics, I still view myself basically as an American.

I consider myself as an Asian-American, although deep down I always know I am
an Asian.

I consider myself as an Asian-American, although deep down, Iview myself as an
American ﬁrst.

I consider myself as an Asian-American. I have both Asian and American
characteristics, and 1 view myself as a blend of both.

188

Appendix J
The 21-item version Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSC-21)

Below is a list of things that you might have felt or experienced. Please rate each item in
term of how you have felt during the past seven days including today. Please circle
one of the four ratings that best describe your experience during the past seven days.

 

Not at all Some or a little Moderately Extremely
l 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Difﬁculty in speaking when you are excited I 2 3 4
2. Trouble remembering things 1 2 3 4
3. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness 1 2 3 4
4. Blaming yourself for things 1 2 3 4
5. Pains in the lower part of your back 1 2 3 4
6. Feeling lonely 1 2 3 4
7. Feeling blue 1 2 3 4
8. Your feelings being easily hurt I 2 3 4
9. Feeling others do not understand you or are 1 2 3 4
unsympathetic
10. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you 1 2 3 4
11. Having to do things very slowly in order to be sure 2 3 4

you are doing them right
12. Feeling inferior to others
13. Soreness of your muscles
14. Having to check and double check what you do
15. Hot or cold spells
16. Your mind going blank
17. Numbness or tingling in parts of your body
18. A lump in your throat
19. Trouble concentrating
20. Weakness in parts of your body
21. Heavy feelings in your arms or legs

t—ﬁI—lI—ir—lI—i—ID—ﬁH—II-d
NNNNNNNNNN
wwwwwwwwww
A&A-ﬁhh-ﬁ-ﬁ-Ah

 

 

 

 

189

Appendix K

The Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—Short Form

(ATSPPHS-S)

Instruction: Below are a number of statements pertaining to psychology and mental
health issues. Read each statement carefully and indicate your agreement, partly

agreement, partly disagreement, or disagreement. Please express your frank opinion in
rating the statements. There are no “wrong” answers, and the only right ones are what

ever you honestly feel or believe. It is important that you answer every item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree Partly Disagree Partly Agree Agree
0 l 2 3

1. If I believed I was having a mental breakdown, my ﬁrst 1 2
inclination would be to get professional attention.

2. The idea of talking about problems with a psychologist strikes 1 2
me as a poor way to get rid of emotional conﬂicts

3. If I were experiencing a serious emotional crisis at this point in 1 2
my life, I would be conﬁdent that I could ﬁnd relief in
psychotherapy.

4. There is something admirable in the attitude of a person who is 1 2
willing to cope with his or her conﬂicts and fears without
resorting to professional help.

5. I would want to get psychological help if I were worried or 1 2
upset for a long period of time.

6. I might want to have psychological counseling in the future. 1 2

7. A person with an emotional problem is not likely to solve it 1 2
alone; he or she is likely to solve it with professional help.

8. Considering the time and expense involved in psychotherapy, it 1 2
would have doubtful value for a person like me.

9. A person should work out his or her own problems; getting 1 2
psychological counseling would be a last resort.

10. Personal and emotional troubles, like many things, tend to work 1 2

out by themselves.

 

 

190

 

 

Appendix L
Demographic Questionnaire
Directions: The following items ask about your background. Please check the appropriate

answer under each item or enter the information in the blank spaces provided. If the
question does not apply to you, please choose “Not Applicable.”

 

1. Age:
2. Gender (please check):
1:] Male El Female

3. Marital status (please check):
D Single Cl Married [3 Domestic Partner El Separated Cl Divorced
1:] Living together but not married ClOther (Please specify)
4. If you are married or living with your partner, what is the ethnicity of your
spouse/partner?
5. Citizenship status:
Cl non-US. citizen 1:] US. permanent resident 1] US. citizen
6. Religion (please check):

 

[3 None Cl Buddhism [:1 Catholic [I Christian [:1 Daoism ClOther (Please
specify)

7. Country of birth (please check):
Cl China Cl Hong Kong [:1 Taiwan Cl US. C] Other (Please
specify)

8. If you were born outside of the U.S., at what age did you start living in the US?

9. Amount of time lived in the U.S.; years and months
10. Highest level of education (please check):

[3 Below high school 1:] Some college, no degree

[I Some high school Cl Four-year (Bachelor’s) college degree
[:1 High school graduation/diploma [:1 Some graduate school work

[:1 Vocational/technical degree Cl Graduate degree (MBA, Ph.D., M.D.,

Cl Two year (Associate's) college degree etc.)

191

ll.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

Where did you receive your highest level of education (please check)?
[:1 China [:1 Hong Kong 1:] Taiwan [:1 Singapore El US.

Cl other (Please specify)

 

Where did you receive the majorigy of your education (please check)?
Cl China 1:] Hong Kong Cl Taiwan [:1 Singapore El US.

Cl other (Please specify)

 

Current occupation:

Annual household income (please check):

[:1 Below $20,000 [I $20,001—$40,000 [:1 $40,001—$60,000

[:1 $60,001—$80,000 Cl $80,001 and above

Your stay in the US. is (please check)

[:1 permanent. (e.g., I plan to live in the US. for the rest of my life.)

[:1 temporary. (e.g., I intend to go back to my home country eventually.)

[I undecided. (e.g., I am not sure whether I will stay in the US. permanently or not.)
Cl Other (Please specify)

Below are some possible reasons for people to come to the US. If you weren’t born
in the US. what were your reasons to come to the US. at the ﬁrst place? (please
check all that apply)

[:1 Educational reasons (e.g., I want to have better educational opportunities for
myself or my family).

1:] Economical reasons (e.g., I and my family would have better economical status in
the US.)

Cl Political reasons (e. g., I agree with the political viewpoints in the US; I am an
asylum seeker.)

[:1 Environmental reasons (e.g., US. is a better place to live.)

Cl Involuntary reasons (e.g., I was forced to come to the US. against my wishes).
1:] Social reasons (e.g., I am here to be with my loved ones.)

[I Other reasons (Please specify)

[1 Not Applicable (e.g., I was born in the US.)

192

17.

l8.

19.

20.
21.

22.

How satisﬁed are you with your life in the US?

Cl satisﬁed Cl slightly satisﬁed 13 neutral Cl slightly unsatisﬁed Cl unsatisﬁed
[:1 Other (Please specify)

If you can choose, where would you like to live permanently?

Cl China Cl Hong Kong Cl Taiwan Cl Singapore El US.

[:1 Other (Please specify)

How do you think the “American” society views Chinese or Chinese-Americans?

U positively El neutral El negatively Cl Other (Please specify)

In which state do you currently live in the US?

 

What is the nature of your current living neighborhood (please check)?
1:] Rural El Urban Cl Suburban C] Other (Please specify)
If you immigrated to the U.S., what was the nature of your living neighborhood in

 

your home country (please check)?
El Rural El Urban [:1 Suburban D Other (Please specify)
[:1 Not Applicable _

193

Appendix M

Plots of Generational Status, Length of Residence in the U.S., and Age of Immigration

against the MCAM Logit Scores

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l } Dot/Lines show Means
2.00 - =
i
g s
I
3 1.00 - I
,5 E
9
2 0.00 ‘
<
0
2
E -1.00 ‘
0
.‘.'.'
«b
N .
-2.oo -
I I 1 I I |
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Generational Status

Figure MI. Plots of the MCAM-C scores across individuals of different generational

status.

194

Dot/Lines show Means

'2 §
1--..“ --.J

i

0.00 "

 

 

26-ltem MCAM-A In logits

 

 

 

f

I I I I
1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Generational Status

Figure M2. Plots of the MCAM-A scores across individuals of different generational

 

 

 

 

status.
2.00 -i _ .
a '-
13’ mo - ‘r-‘Ss-I'.
.5 3 .é'. :- 0
o E'l-‘iii-i'
2' 0.00 * :--.":-.'-.' .'
g a I I g. . f
E
E -1.00 -
G
.2
6
N
.2.00 4
L”I—“__I_n-_ I r 7 I I
o 100 200 300 400

Length of Residence In the US in Months

Figure M3. Plots of the MCAM-C scores and length of residence in the US. in months.

195

26-item MCAM-A in logits

 

 

1
1
1
l

l
1
i
.

 

_.__,__ _l.

I I
200 300 400

Length of Residence In the US in Months

Figure M4. Plots of the MCAM-A scores and length of residence in the US. in months.

 

 

 

 

2.00: - "
I .3. I
3 '- .::-
3 1.oo- ' ' .-“::' .'
3" ..3 II.II.
5 = ' ::'.3-ll -- -
I .'I : !.::'.
o_oo- ._.:- ' , ' :-l:;!_.:..
I :2' - I ' I -' I '
.. . . I C .
54.00- E: - :
g n
-2130'
I I I I I
0 1O 20 3O 40

Age of Immigration In Years

Figure M5. Plots of the MCAM-C scores and age of immigration in years.

196

.0"
o
o
_1__

2.004
1.00- . :1
._ !'

.I.I. .-'.§I'I:..
0.001 - .. - I: :0..':I;|.':-.

26-item MCAM-A In logits

 

 

 

I .I I I
. I I I'I. .I.
'. l:l :"' I
.1001 -.- ”J1 ..
. 'izﬂ. I
4.001 ' i
' r l j I I
0 10 20 30 40

Age of Immigration In Year's.

Figure M6. Plots of the MCAM-A scores and age of immigration in years.

197

Distribution of the Final 52 Items of the MCAM

Appendix N

 

 

 

L F LA El CP V Total %
Knowledge 8 0 2 0 4 0 14 27%
Behavior 2 4 6 2 6 0 20 38%
Attitudes 0 2 2 4 2 8 l 8 35%
Total 10 6 10 6 l2 8 52
Percentagea 19% 12% 19% 12% 23% 1 5% 100%

 

Note. L = language; F = food; LA = leisure activity; E1 = ethnic interaction; CP = cultural

participation; V = values.

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om .=o>> bo> 23:5 58:25": v:8m:oc:= ~ :2: bo> 23:5 80::5 “ESQ—0::: _ om
$3.555
:5 mega? 9&208 c5 man—EEC :5: 23595 .95—m 05 mo 3235\355 2.: :8 38:85
mm 20:. 08 38:85 :5 8:23 m._a:E>_vE :o 8:33 5:3: ommﬁoaﬁoo 2:2? :85: < mm
.5810an .338: 08:20
vm a a $8 8 5:250 b: 8:. 2:03 _ mo :8qu a ES: 8 56.20 E: SE 2:03 _ mm
mm :85: 8330-5: a $5 8 8:— 2295 _ €38: 03:20 .3 :8th 5 DRE 8 85 2:03 _ 3
[god £0323 .m:8_:o::< SE HOZ on _ .omolEdO 3 “BEES E2233 8:— HOZ on _ mm
.m§o_:o:.<
3380M .3 Eu: £33: @3908: b.3056 3a: H 68:20 ‘3 20: £23: wﬁumooo: 3m 26: _ vm
.680 £83 dos—8:3 $0585.: .680 is; 60:83...» .3586 .mwaltﬂﬁ
.omﬁhaE Sosa $2? .550 .8 .Em=§2>_::_ Sons 82? :05: co .Eﬂoﬂ. .Emmgﬁégo
mm ..mdv E89? 0::; 585:5. 05 :33 08mm _ ..wdv 889?. 039 SEED 05 53» came _ MN
3 .:ao_._oE< b? m_ 079 m£>= E .1205 E 68:50 be,» m_ 03% :3: E .355 E NN
. 2 m 5:322:88 5020 Ape—hm :2325858
“no: 8 $83 .852 wizw a: .wﬁvﬁam mucoE 6.820 “mob 8 man? .352 wEZw a: .wﬁvﬁam
5235—208 mo an“? ..wdv 0::—3 525:5. 3:08 dosed—28m CO 933 rmdv 23:5 80:20
cm 5 958 3:08:80 35:25 :5 moose—En ﬂu. H :_ :58 3:08:80 3833 :5 8288: war— _ _N
.35.:
S 425:: 28 x8 3 :85: 525:2. :m 33> _ 28 >5 mm $88: 8330 he 0:388 32> _ on
ago
:a_m<-:o: .050 8 $259.5 :8.an .mo_w:< .283: 80:20 :EB
:36on £3» MES—285 :23 oiatomEoomm 30.: H 2:8: FEB @5885 :2? “VF—utomﬁoog Eﬂ _ 3
Bags:
262 53:5:
>a>oEoM 283% «>502 05 :_ E0: 2833. 0-3202 05 E :5: .meto

 

 

$2.02 2.: ES.“ vo>oEom 203 35: coveoaégzmwoz 05 has w:_:onE=:om 05 .«o 238% 2:.

0 cause?

199

REFERENCES

Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W. C. (1997). The multidimensional random
coefﬁcients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-
23.

Atkinson, D. R., & Gim, R. H. (1989). Asian-American cultural identity and attitudes
toward mental health services. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 209-212.

Barry, D. T. (2001). Development of a new scale for measuring acculturation: The East
Asian acculturation measure (EAAM). Journal of Immigrant Health, 3, 193-197.

Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, R, & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
Cultural frames switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible
cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492-516.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed),
Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new ﬁndings. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1996). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H.
Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology. (V 01. 3),
Social Behavior and Applications (pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bimbaum, M. H. (Rd). (2000). Psychological experiments on the Internet. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model-selection and Akaike's information criterion (AIC): The
general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370.

Chung, R. H. G., Kim, B. S. K., &Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian American
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, factor analysis, reliability,
and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 66-80.

Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using Statistical Procedures to Identijy
Differentially Functioning Test Items. NCME Instructional Topics in Educational
Measurement module.

Cuéllar, 1., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican
Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 1 7, 275-304.

Cuéllar, 1., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican
American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 199-217.

Cuéllar, 1., Nyberg, B.. Maldonado, R. E., & Roberts, R. E. (1997). Ethnic identity and
acculturation in a young adult Mexican-origin population. Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 535-549.

200

Davis, C., & Katzman, M. A. (1999). Perfection as acculturation: Psychological
correlates of eating problems in Chinese male and female students living in the
United States. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 65—70.

Derogatis, L., Lipman, R., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E, & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
Symptom Checklist. Psychological Measurements in Psychopharmacology, 7, 79-
110.

DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-287.

Draba, RE. (1977). The identification and interpretation of item bias (Research
Memorandum 26). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Eyou, M., Adair, V., & Dixon, R. (2000). Cultural identity and psychological adjustment
of adolescent Chinese immigrants in New Zealand. Journal of Adolescence, 23,
531-543.

Fischer, E. H., & Farina, A. (1995). Attitudes toward seeking professional psychological
help: A shortened form and considerations for research. Journal of College
Student Development, 36, 368-373.

Fischer, E. H., & Turner, J. L. (1970). Orientation to seeking professional psychological
help: Development and research utility of an attitude scale. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 35, 79-90.

Flannery, W. P. (1996). Asian-American acculturation: An application of the culture
diagnosticin method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Califomia,
Riverside.

F lannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation
models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1035-1045.

Florsheim, P. (1997). Chinese adolescent immigrants: Factors related to psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 143-163.

Gaw, A. (1982). Cross-cultural psychiatry. Littleton, MA: John Wright.

Gil, A. G., & Vega, W. A. (1996). Two different worlds: Acculturation stress and
adaptation among Cuban and Nicaraguan families. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 13, 435-456.

Gim, R. H., Atkinson, D. R., & Whiteley, S. (1990). Asian-American acculturation,
severity of concerns, and willingness to see a counselor. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 3 7, 281—285.

Gong, F ., Takeuchi, D. T., Agbayani-Siewert, P., & Tacata, L. (2003). Acculturation,
psychological distress, and alcohol use: Investigating the effects of ethnic identity
and religiosity. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation:

201

Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 189-206).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Green, D. E., Walkey, F. H., McCormick, I. A., & Taylor, A. J. W. (1988). Hopkins
Symptom Checklist with New Zealand and United States respondents. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 40, 61-70.

Gupta, R., & Yick, A. G. (2001). Preliminary validation of the acculturation scale on
Chinese Americans. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 2, 43-56.

Gushue, G. V., & Sciarra, D. T. (1995). Culture and families: A multidimensional
approach. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 586-606). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Hans, N. (2002). The role of ethnic identity and acculturation in determining
acculturative stress in Asian Indians. (Doctoral dissertation, Paciﬁc Graduate
School of Psychology, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3378.

Heras, P., & Revilla, L. A. (1994). Acculturation, generational status, and family
environment of Filipino Americans: A study in cultural adaptation. Family
Therapy, 21, 129-138.

Horn, K. L. (1998). Investigating the inﬂuence of individualism-collectivism and
acculturation on counselor preference and attitudes toward seeking counseling
among Asian-Americans. (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University,
1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 4451.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, G, & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultrual minds: A
dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist,
55, 709-720.

Johnson, M. L., Wall, T. L., & Guanipa, C. (2002). The psychometric properties of the
orthogonal cultural identiﬁcation scale in Asian Americans. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 181-191.

Kalcik, S. (1985). Ethnic foodways in America: Symbol and the performance of identity.
In L. K. Brown & K. Mussell (Eds.), Ethnic and regional foodways in the United
States: The performance of group identity (pp.37-65). Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.

Kim, B. S. K., Brenner, B. R., Liang, C. T. H., & Asay, P. A. (2003). A qualitative study
of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 156-170.

Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2003). Asians cultural values, attitudes toward seeking
professional psychological help, and willingness to see a counselor. Counseling
Psychologist, 31, 343-361.

202

Kim, C. (1999). Effects of acculturation, leisure beneﬁts, and leisure constraints on
acculturative stress and self-esteem among Korean immigrants. (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,
60, 2240.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K, & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.

Lee, E. (1996). Chinese families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordan, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.),
Ethnicity and Family Therapy (3rd ed., pp. 249-267). New York: Guilford Press.

Lee, R. M., Choe, J ., Kim, 6., & Ngo, V. (2000). Construction of the Asian American
Family Conﬂicts Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 211-222.

Le Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American panethnicity. Bridging institutions and identities.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Leong, F. T. L., & Tata, S. P. (1990). Sex and acculturation differences in occupational

values among Chinese-American children. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37,
208-212. . .

Leong, F. T. L., Wagner, N. S., & Tata, S. P. (1995). Racial and ethnic variations in help-
seeking attitudes. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds. ), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 4 1 5-43 8).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Li, C. (1998). Impact of acculturation on Chinese-Americans’ life and its implication for
helping professionals. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 1 7, 7-11.

Lieber, B, Chin, D., Nihira, K., & Mink, I. (2001). Holding on and letting go: Identity
and acculturation among Chinese immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7, 247-261.

Liebkind, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). Acculturation and psychological well-being
among immigrant adolescents in Finland: A comparative study of adolescents
from different cultural backgrounds. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 446-
469.

Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works
best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 266-283.

Linacre, J. M. (2002a). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 3, 85-106.

Linacre, J. M. (2002b). WINSTEPS [Computer program, version 3.37]. Chicago: MESA
Press.

203

Marin, G. (1992). Issues in the measurement of acculturation among Hispanics. In K. F.
Geisinger (Ed), Psychological testing of Hispanics (pp. 23 5-25 1 ). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics:
The bidimensional acculturation scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 297-316. .

Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Van Oss Marin, B., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Perez-Stable, E. J.
(1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183-205.

McGoldrick, M., Giordan, J ., & Pearce, J. K. (Ed). (1996). Ethnicity and Family Therapy
(3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Mendoza, R. H. (1989). An empirical scale to measure type and degree of acculturation
in Mexican-American adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 20, 372-385.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from
persons’ responses and performances as scientiﬁc inquiry into score meaning.
American Psychologist, 50, 741 -749.

Miranda, A. O., & Matheny, K. B. (2000) Socio-psycholOgical predictors of acculturative
stress among Latino adults. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22, 306-317.

Mirkin, M. P. (1998). The impact of multiple contexts on recent immigrant families. In
M. McGoldrick (Ed). Re-visioning family therapy. NY: Guilford Press.

Nguyen, H. H., & Eye, A. v. (2002). The acculturation scale for Vietnamese adolescents
(ASVA): A bidimensional perspective. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 26, 202-213.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security,
design, and control in psychological research on the intemet. Journal of Social
Issues, 58, 161-176.

Penﬁeld, R. D., & Lam, T. C. M. (2000). Assessing differential item functioning in
performance assessment: Review and recommendations. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1 9, 5-15.

Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (1995).
Handbook of Multicultural Counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53,
495-502.

204

Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the signiﬁcance of estimated signed and unsigned areas
between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14,
197-207.

Roosens, E. E. (1989). Creating ethnicity: The process of ethnogenesis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, D. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1990). The acculturation of Chinese immigrants:
Perceived effects on family functioning of length of residence in two cultural
contexts. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 15, 495-514.

Rowe, W., Behrens, J. T., & Leach, M. M. (1995). Racial/Ethnic identity and racial
consciousness: Looking back and looking forward. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural
Counseling (pp. 218-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or

bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-
identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49-
65. .

Sam, D. L. (2000). Psychological adaptation of adolescents with immigrant backgrounds.
Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 5-25.

Smith, E. V. (2001). Evidence for the resliabiltiy of measures and validity of measure
interpretation: A Rasch measurement perspective. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 2, 281-311. -

Smith, E. V. (2000). Metric development and score reporting in Rasch measurement.
Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 303-326.

Smith, R. M. (2000). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 1, 199-218.

Sodowsky, G. R., Kwan, K. K., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the
United States. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 123-154). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup
Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77-88.

Sue, D., & Sue, S. (1987). Cultural factors in the clinical assessment of Asian Americans.
Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 55, 479-487.

205

Suen, H. K. (1990). Principles of Test Theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity
Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 5 2, 1 041-1046.

Suinn, R. M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew Asian
Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 47, 401-407.

Szapocznik, J ., & Kurtines, W. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism, and adjustment
among Cuban Americans. In A. M. Padilla (Ed. ), Psychological dimensions on
the acculturation process. Theory, models, and some new ﬁndings (pp. 139-159).
Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tata, S. P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1994). Individualism-collectivism, social-network
orientation, and acculturation as predictors of attitudes toward seeking

professional psychological help among Chinese Americans. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41, 280-287.

Tsai, J. L., Lee, P. A., & Ying, Y. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being
American:” Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 31, 302-332.

United States Census Bureau (2000). Characteristics of the Foreign Born by Place of
Birth: Table 3.1 Foreign-Bom Population by Sex, Age, and World Region of
Birth. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/
socdemo/foreign/p20-534.html 7

United States Census Bureau (2002, February). The Asian population: 2000 Census brief.
Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-

16.pdf

Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2002). Biculturalism among older children: Cultural
frame switching, attributions, self-identiﬁcation, and attitudes. Journal ofCross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 596-609.

Weiten, W., & Lloyd, M. A. (2000). Friendship and love. In W. Weiten & M. A. Lloyd
(Eds.), Psychology applied to modern life (pp. 216-245). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Wong, S. K. (1999). Acculturation, peer relations, and delinquent behavior of Chinese-
Canadian youth. Adolescence, 34, 108-119.

Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square ﬁt values. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.

206

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement.
Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

Wu, M. L. (1997). The development and application of a fit test for use with marginal
maximum likelihood estimation and generalized item response models.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.

Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J ., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ACER Conquest: Generalized item
response modeling software (Version 1.0) [computer program]. Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Young, M. Y., & Gardner, R. C. (1990). Modes of acculturation and second language
proﬁciency. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 59-71.

207

   

I111111gilllgljjiljlql