Wk DB SMART Goal

10

Diversity and Assessment Joyce P. Chu, Brian A. Maruyama, Ashley Elefant,

and Bruce Bongar Palo Alto University, California, USA

Background and History of Multicultural Personality Assessment

Multicultural research in psychology has increased dramatically in recent years, with growing evidence that cultural factors impact many aspects of psychology including symptom presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and assessment (Dana, 2000; Church, 2001; Leong, Leung, & Cheung, 2010). Within this cultural research, studies on culturally competent assessment have been less developed than other areas such as diagnosis and treatment (Dana, 2000). It has been recognized for some time that standard personality assessments carry some cultural bias and are affected by cultural influence. Yet, only recently has research begun to examine systematically the effects of culture to incorporate culturally competent assessment into standard personality assessment (Dana, 2000; Flaugher, 1978).

The need for culturally competent psychological and personality assessment is evident when examining the changing demographics of the United States. In 2010, 36.3% of the US population identified as part of an ethnic minority group (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a), and this percentage is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. The Latino population alone, for example, is estimated to comprise 31% of the US population by 2060 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 20146). These changing demographics demonstrate the clear importance of developing culturally competent personality assessments.

Historically, culture has been neglected in the development of personality assess­ ments (Dana, 2000; Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999; Laher, 2007). One key example of this lack of integration of culture into personality assessment is evident with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The MMPI was first intro­ duced in the 1940s by Hathaway and McKinley to evaluate personality, and it quickly became one of the most used clinical instruments for the assessment of personality (Butcher, 2004; Hall et al., 1999; Hill, Pace, & Robbins, 2010). However, this measure used a standardization sample that did not include ethnic minorities, and

The Wiley Handbook ofPersonality Assessment, First Edition. Edited by Updesh Kumar. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

135 Diversity and Assessment

was criticized by many researchers for being racially biased (Butcher, 2005; Dana, 2000; Pritchard & Rosenblatt, 1980). Subsequently, the instrument was redeveloped in 1989 (the MMPI-2) with the goals ofrevising test items that may have contained racial bias, and restandardizing population norms of the testing instrument to be more representative of ethnic minorities in the population (Hall et al., 1999). The MMPI -2 was also translated into several different languages, such as Spanish and Chinese (Butcher, 2004, 2005). These attempts to make the MMPI-2 more cultur­ ally appropriate represented important advances with regards to the development of culturally competent personality assessments.

Although multicultural personality assessment has witnessed important improve­ ments over the past several decades, its development is still nascent with several challenges to the creation of reliable and valid personality assessments for diverse populations (Church, 2001; Dana, 2000). One source of these difficulties lies in a lack of diversity and assessment research, with limited generativity and dissemination. Second, the cultural assessment literature has been marked by a constricted focus on culturally adjusted norms and language translation as a means of developing cultur­ ally competent multicultural personality assessments. Although culturally adjusted norms and language translation represent an important part of the process, this narrow focus ignores other important cultural factors related to administration, interpretation, and validity of personality assessment instruments (Dana, 2000; Leong et al., 2010). Finally, there has been little theoretical guidance about the main ways or domains in which culture can affect assessment, and how assessment instru - ments should be developed, administered, and interpreted to account for such domains of cultural influence.

The purpose of this chapter is to conduct a literature review of current research on multicultural personality assessment, to establish the five main domains or ways in which culture informs assessment. Together, these domains constitute a solid foundation for culturally competent assessment to guide future advances in the research and practice of personality assessment with diverse populations. These five domains of culturally competent assessment include: ( 1) a need for differential norms that represent diverse populations; (2) assessment tools should represent culturally valid representations of the construct; (3) assessment scales should be constructed and interpreted to account for cultural idioms of distress and reporting style; ( 4) consideration of the cultural and technical context of the testing process; and (5) assessment feedback should be modified to account for culturally informed responses and expectations.

Differential Norms

Differential norms can play an important role in the interpretation of personality assessment results. Normative data provide a wealth of information by allowing researchers to compare an individual's raw scores to a population of similar individ­ uals. Raw scores for assessment measures derive their meaning from standardization or normative samples with which they are developed and tested (Geisinger, 1994).

136 Joyce P. Chu et al.

Without a sufficient degree of congruence between the standardization sample and the individual being tested, raw scores become meaningless. Thus, when using an assessment measure on a particular population, it is important to ensure the measure was normed on a population similar to that being tested.

Church (2001) described sample bias as occurring when normative samples of an assessment tool do not match respondent characteristics. These characteristics can include a range of cultural identities such as region of origin, ethnicity, language, and sexual orientation. Yet many factors and characteristics are involved in ensuring an adequate match between the test subject and the normative sample. With numbers of diverse groups in the US growing rapidly, it is critical for psychologists to appreciate the complex nature of culture. It is unfeasible to assume that two individuals from the same ethnic background will adhere to the same cultural standards, as differences within cultural groups are often greater than differences between cultural groups.

Acculturation has received particular research attention as a demographic char­ acteristic that can affect outcomes of personality assessment and the validity of assessment norms (Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Research suggests that acculturation can affect basic personality characteristics such as extraversion, emotional stability, social desirability, or acquiescence ( e.g., Grimm & Church, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Thus, while many researchers simply gloss over issues of acculturation in assessment, Vijver and Phalet (2004) assert that the concurrent use of an accultur­ ation measure can strengthen the validity of multicultural assessment through the use of differential cutoff scores, criterion data, or even statistical manipulation. Using acculturation scores as a covariate in regression models may also help to account for the role of acculturation in multicultural personality assessment (Vijver & Phalet, 2004). The use of acculturative information could prove invaluable in providing culturally competent personality assessment services.

When it is determined that the target population differs from the normative sample in critical areas or demographic characteristics (whether due to acculturation, age, gender, education, or others), a different set of norms may be necessary before the assessment results can be interpreted meaningfully. Indeed, research has high­ lighted the need for different norms with numerous well-known personality assessment measures. For example, on the MMPI, some cultural minority groups consistently demonstrate elevated scores on scales 2, 8, and 9 relative to the norma­ tive sample, indicative of the need for shifted norms rather than true elevations in pathology (Butcher, 1996). Because of notable differences between adolescent and adult populations, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) - Adolescent was developed specifically for use with adolescent populations ( Geisinger, 1994). The TEMAS version ofthe Tell-Me-A-Story projective personality assessment was developed as a specialized Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) for urban minority children (Constantino & Malgady, 2000). The developers found that tailoring the TEMAS to situations applicable to the target population yielded more accurate and significant results. More accurate results, however, does not imply that cultural differences were fully accounted for. Ambiguity and inconsistent interpretations of projective tests of personality make it difficult to discern the appropriateness of these tests for use with diverse populations.

137 Diversity and Assessment

Several challenges inherent to the creation of differential norms preclude its role as a universal or comprehensive solution to the need for culturally competent personality assessment. First, the empirical task of creating separate norms for differ­ ent cultural identity groups can be a time-consuming and resource-heavy endeavor. Financial and practical constraints make it unlikely that specialized norms or versions of test instruments can be developed for multitudes of cultural subgroups. Second, because within-group variability is often greater than between-group variability, differential norms often represent an oversimplified solution inapplicable to the various response styles present within any one cultural group. Finally, norms based on a small subset of demographic characteristics become untenable as mixed race and multiple intersecting identities become increasingly common ( e.g., which gender, age, or ethnic norms would one choose for a 68-year-old African-American trans­ gender individual?). Despite these challenges, creation of differential norms has provided important advancements in accounting for cultural variations in assessment responses across diverse groups.

Cultural Validity of the Construct

Cultural variations in personality construct validity

A second domain in which culture affects personality assessment relates to construct validity - whether the assessment actually measures what it is supposed to measure (Geisinger, 1994). Construct bias is a term used to describe incongruence in con­ ceptualization of a construct between cultural groups (Vijver & Phalet, 2004). A similar term, conceptual equivalence, refers to whether or not a construct assessed by an assessment instrument has the same meaning in different cultures (Dana, 2000; Leong et al., 2010).

Indeed, research suggests that validity of personality constructs can be inconsis­ tent depending on one's cultural identity or group membership. For example, assessing personality based on trait-level differences may not be ideal in cross­ cultural assessment, as collectivist cultures tend to be less familiar with Western practices of introspection and self-assessment (Church, 2001). These essential differences can lead to a host of issues that may serve to invalidate the results of personality assessments. When assessing an individual from a collectivist background, measures may require adaptations in wording to reflect a more relationally oriented version of personality, since individuals from collectivist cultures are more likely to act based on social roles rather than individual trait characteristics ( Church, 2001). For example, in Western cultures, an individual may attribute his or her actions of caring for elderly parents to personality constructs such as conscientiousness, whereas in collectivist cultures, caring for one's elderly parents is an expected social role for children.

The most popular and well-researched model of personality - the extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism factors of the Five-Factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987) - has itself been

138 Joyce P. Chu et al.

questioned for its validity across cultures. Factor analysis research comparing Western measures of personality with measurements in non-Western cultures has revealed a potential sixth personality factor, interpersonal relatedness, suggesting that the­ ories of personality may not be equally applicable or stable across cultures ( Cheung, Cheung, Leung, Ward & Leong, 2003 ). Additionally, personality may be mercurial in nature, changing across the life span as a function of life experience.

A need for measures that assess culturally valid representations of personality constructs

Given the culturally variant nature of personality constructs, assessment tools should be evaluated and/or modified to ensure that they embody culturally valid representa­ tions of the constructs they assess. As establishing conceptual equivalence has proven to be a complex task, researchers have proffered different ways to evaluate con­ struct validity in assessment. Factor analysis has commonly been used to ensure construct validity across cultures (Church, 2001). Factor-analytic techniques allow researchers to not only assess the validity of constructs between differing cultural groups, but also provide information on how some constructs may present differently in other cultures by looking at specific factor loadings ( Geisinger, 1994). Alternatively, Geisinger ( 1994) suggested the use of an editorial board to assess and make necessary changes to establish conceptual equivalence.

Several personality assessment tools have been criticized for potential difficulties with conceptual non-equivalence. Projective measures of personality like the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) have been discussed as being based in culturally insensitive interpretations of personality. Although versions of these widely used projective tests have been standardized and normed with various cultures, it remains uncertain whether the Western psychoanalytic theories that the TAT and Rorschach are based on can apply to other cultures (Church, 2001). Geisinger ( 1994) observed that a personality assessment, such as the MMPI-A, that asks questions about going to a school dance or the movies may not make any sense to someone from a developing country. Although these questions may represent one construct in the US, this construct may not be the same across all cultures, and adaptations must be made to accurately examine conceptual equivalence.

In some cases when constructs are determined to be strongly culturally variant, entirely new "indigenous" measures have been created to fit the cultural needs of a population. Pursuant to a factor analysis showing a non-Western personality factor of interpersonal relatedness, the Cross-Cultural Personality Inventory-2 (CPAI-2) was developed indigenously for use in non-Western cultures (Cheung et al., 2003). With increasing diversity across the globe, however, there are practical limitations to developing indigenous or specific measures of personality that will apply to every cultural group. The growing number ofindividuals with intersecting identities confers additional challenges; straddling multiple cultural identities can lead to a variety of presentations that would require increasingly specialized levels of analysis. As a compromise, researchers in cross-cultural personality assessment have begun to find utility in integrating both universally endorsed personality constructs

139 Diversity and Assessment

and culture-specific personality constructs to develop a more encompassing personality assessment for diverse groups (Leong et al., 2010).

Cultural Idioms of Distress and Reporting and Response Style

The third domain of intersection of culture with personality assessment states that assessment scales should be constructed and interpreted to account for cultural idioms of distress and reporting and response style. Idioms of distress refer to the various ways in which members of different cultural groups express distress and psychological symptoms (Nichter, 1981). These idioms of distress affect how people from cultural groups present their symptoms, what symptoms people feel, and how they report these symptoms to mental healthcare providers.

For example, individuals from non-Western cultures are more likely to experience mental health problems somatically rather than psychologically (Mak & Zane, 2004; Ryder et al., 2008 ). This idiom of distress can be seen throughout non-Western cul­ tures, but is particularly salient for those from traditional Asian cultures. Assessment instruments have been modified to incorporate these cultural idioms of distress; somatic symptoms are added as one of three main factors screened in the Vietnamese Depression Scale (VDS; Dinh, Yamada, & Yee, 2009). An understanding of idioms of distress and the successful incorporation of these cultural differences into psychological tests is crucial for culturally competent assessment.

When considering the development ofculturally competent personality assessment, cultural variations in reporting style should also be taken into consideration (Laher, 2007). Reporting style refers to how an individual reports his or her symptoms and how much an individual reports ( e.g., over- or under-reporting) (Heiervang, Goodman, & Goodman, 2008), and response style refers to the way an individual responds to survey questions regardless of the content of the questions (Van Vaerenbergh & Thomas, 2013).

Culture can impact the validity of test results in many ways due to cultural differ­ ences in reporting and response style. Those from Western cultures ( e.g., the US) are more likely to engage in self-enhancement behaviors than individuals from Eastern cultures ( e.g., Japan), which can impact reporting style (Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002). Questionnaires may show those from Eastern cultures as having more severe symptoms, based on their lack of comparable engagement in self-enhancement behaviors, than their Western peers. This difference in assessment scores would be indicative of a difference in reporting style rather than a true difference in severity of symptoms (Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Leong et al., 2010).

Hamamura, Heine, and Paulhus (2008) also noted that Asian-Americans have a central tendency bias to report more moderate symptoms, regardless of the severity of the actual symptoms, than their Caucasian peers. Asian-Americans may therefore under-report the severity of their symptoms based on differences in cultural values alone. Finally, forced-choice responses - those that require either a "true" or "false" response - potentially limit the cultural validity of measurement. Having to choose

140 Joyce P Chu et al.

between a "true" or "false" response may misrepresent responses from some cultures by not allowing for contextual,. situational, and cultural factors to be addressed in the response (Laher, 2007). Laher (2007) suggested that in order to obtain the most accurate and culturally competent assessment of personality, a battery of tests combined with client interview would be most prudent for examination of all of the responses within the client's cultural context.

Overall, cultural variations in idioms of distress and reporting and response styles can result in an over- or under-estimation of true scores on an assessment instrument. It will be important for assessment practitioners to assess and note such cultural factors, and adjust score interpretation accordingly. Utilization of multiple modes of assessment can help to detect cultural differences due to reporting or response style, and all assessment results should be understood within the cultural context of the clients' lives.

Cultural and Technical Context of the Testing Process

In creating a culturally competent personality assessment administration, literature suggests that one must consider the cultural and technical context of the testing pro­ cess. It is a common assumption that assessment measures yield consistent responses from the same respondent regardless of the type of room, examiner, or method of administration. However, one important factor in considering equivalence of assess­ ments is the cultural and technical context in which the assessment is given (Flaugher, 1978), as people from different cultural backgrounds react differentially to several aspects of the testing environment.

First, the language ( e.g., wording choice of the instrument, as well as test administration in an individual's preferred language) in which assessments are given can affect the validity of one's test responses. Linguistic equivalence, also known as transla­ tional equivalence, is focused on the accuracy of translation oftest items. Many poten­ tial problems arise as the result of translating personality assessments from one language to another, such as differences in the meaning ofwords, differences in connotation, and masculine bias of wording. Furthermore, regional differences in word usage make it difficult to create linguistically equivalent personality assessments. Brislin ( 199 3) rec­ ommended a translation followed by back-translation procedure (i.e., translating back to the original language and examining for parity with the original version) to help ameliorate non-equivalence issues. Geisinger (1994) recommended taking this process one step further, through the use of an editorial board who would back-translate the document as a group in order to discuss any possible differences in opinion or concerns about the translation. When working with more than one linguistically equivalent ver­ sion of an assessment tool, one must be aware that issues of metric equivalence can still exist. Lopez and Romero (1988), for example, found that although there are many similarities between the English and Spanish versions ofthe Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), there are important psychometric differences that preclude direct comparison between English WAIS and Spanish WAIS scores.

Second, characteristics or behaviors of the examiner or environment can elicit different responses that reflect cultural influence rather than the true construct in

141 Diversity and Assessment

question. Stereotype threat, for instance, occurs when the tester or testing environment activates a negative stereotype about one's cultural identity group; research shows that stereotype threat can negatively affect one's test performance ( e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotypes can be activated by minute aspects of the testing envi­ ronment or materials (Thames et al., 2013). For example, discomfort by the exam­ inee with the tester (i.e., because of previous negative experiences with others of a similar gender or race, or because of the tester's interpersonal mannerisms) may discourage versus facilitate open, introspective, and/or honest responses on assess­ ment instruments (Thames et al., 2013).

Third, the method of test administration - termed technical equivalence - can also affect one's assessment responses. Ryder et al. (2008), for example, found that the same respondents reported different severity levels of symptomatology depending on method of test administration via spontaneous report, self-report questionnaire, versus in-person clinical interview. Specifically, Chinese participants reported more somatic symptoms than their Euro-Canadian counterparts when queried directly via clinical interview or spontaneous report. These group differences in somatization were not apparent when assessed via self-report questionnaire. Morrison and Downey (2000) found similarly that ethnic minority clients at a counseling center were less likely than non-minority peers to disclose suicidal ideation on self-report; a greater level of ide­ ation became evident only after direct suicide risk assessment by a provider.

The mediating reasons why different methods of test administration or testing environment yield different responses in ethnic minority individuals is still largely unknown, though a cadre of cultural factors may account for such effects. Social desirability, cultural mistrust of healthcare professionals, cultural practices of expres­ sivity versus inhibition, stigma about psychology, and so on, may represent cultural variables that could affect testing response and are deserving of further study. Clearly, research is needed to further quantify the effects of the cultural and technical con­ text of the testing environment on personality assessment responses, and to identify the cultural factors that mediate differential testing responses.

When conducting assessment, it is essential to remember that many factors beyond the assessment items themselves, such as the cultural and technical context of the testing process, may affect the equivalence and validity of results (Dana, 2000). Although some factors may be out of the control of the test administrator, efforts should be directed towards minimizing extraneous factors, adapting the test envi­ ronment to maximize open responding depending on the client's cultural background, and contextualizing one's interpretation oftest responses within salient cultural influences in the testing environment.

Culturally Informed Responses to Feedback

Providing feedback about test results to clients is an integral part of the assessment process, with the field of psychology moving towards a more comprehensive model of feedback provision (Finn & Tonsager, 1992 ). In fact, research indicates that providing assessment feedback to clients in a professional and compassionate

142 Joyce P. Chu et al.

manner can, in and of itself, serve as a clinical intervention. A series of experi­ mental studies found a number of positive consequences of providing empathetic feedback to college students after completing the MMPI-2 (Finn & Tonsager, 1992; Newman & Greenway, 1997). Compared with control participants who only received examiner attention, participants in the feedback condition demonstrated a significant decrease in symptomatology that persisted at follow-up two weeks later. Additionally, participants in the experimental condition evidenced greater levels of hopefulness and self-esteem compared with the control group immediately and two weeks following feedback.

Although few dispute the importance of giving assessment feedback to clients, there is a dearth of research investigating the effects of different approaches to client feedback, and even fewer investigations offeedback as influenced by issues of cultural diversity. There is a need for psychologists to understand potential issues that culture can present when providing feedback to clients.

For instance, some of the individual difference characteristics responsible for the effectiveness of assessment feedback may be culturally variant. In Finn and Tonsager's (1992) study, authors found that participants who were more self-reflective at intake were generally more likely to show positive reactions to MMPI-2 feedback. Self-reflection varies depending on cultural identity such as age ( e.g., Haga, Kraft, & Corby, 2009), highlighting that one must account for cultural variation in self­ reflection or other emotion regulation tendencies when tailoring one's approach towards assessment feedback.

Client response to the mode of assessment feedback may also be culturally deter­ mined. Feedback may be delivered by the provider via several modes: in person versus in a written report. Some providers may even decide it is prudent not to provide feedback at all. Most models of feedback provision have been based on person-to­ person provision of feedback, emphasizing a humanistic component that engages the client and allows them to feel more involved (Finn & Tonsager, 1992). Yet, just as the technical context or mode of assessment administration can elicit different responses from different cultural individuals, mode of feedback can also elicit difference responses. For example, providing a written report of assessment results to a cultural minority client with a limited familiarity with or understanding of psychological and medical jargon may serve to alienate the client or decrease effec­ tiveness of the assessment feedback.

A last example of cultural influence on assessment feedback involves expectations of involvement by the client, the assessor, and the client's therapist in the feedback process. According to Kreilkamp (1989) active participation by the client is a basic and important component of providing assessment feedback that motivates clients to take ownership of their results. The recommendation may be less applicable for clients from collectivistic cultures who may prefer not to collaborate as an active participant or advocate in the process of feedback provision. Cultures that value respect for authority figures may view client participation in the feedback provision as disrespectful or unwanted.

Providing feedback to clients about their personality assessment results can be a challenging, yet rewarding experience. The challenges become increasingly more

143 Diversity and Assessment

complicated with the need for incorporation of diversity and cultural considerations. Clearly, flexibility and careful consideration of cultural aspects will be an integral part of competently providing feedback to clients. Additional research is needed to inves­ tigate recommended models of feedback provision with diverse populations.

Conclusion

The literature to date concerning multicultural personality assessment is rich with recommendations for practice and further research. As the field of personality assessment moves forward, it is essential that findings from the literature be incorporated into practice. Without awareness and knowledge of cultural differences, personality assessment can be misleading or inaccurate. Competence in personality assessment, as with psychological assessment in general, requires administrators to be knowledgeable about the appropriateness and limits of the test they are using, including cultural variables that can impact the testing process and test performance.

The current literature analysis indicated that development, administration, inter­ pretation, and client feedback of results from assessment measures should incorporate cultural influences in five main domains: differential norms, incorporation of cultur­ ally valid representations of the construct, cultural idioms of distress and reporting and response style, the cultural and technical context of the testing process, and culturally informed responses to assessment feedback. By accounting for these cultural domains, personality assessment will have a better chance at creating a testing process with utility in a variety of contexts and diverse populations.

The future of personality assessment is ripe with potential. With accumulating research on personality across cultures, assessment is becoming more advanced. Further research investigating personality differences between cultural groups, within cultural groups, and across cultures is needed to enhance the validity of existing per­ sonality constructs and theories. Studies are needed to further identify cultural variables that may interfere with the substantive validity of true assessment results, to examine the ideal testing environment and assessment feedback conditions depending on cultural background, and to provide guidelines for incorporating idioms of distress and reporting and response style into culturally competent interpretation of test results. Research is also needed to investigate solutions to appropriately assess personality constructs in diverse groups without creating individualized assessments for the infinite numbers ofcultural identity subgroups. The field ofdiversity and personality assessment is in a nascent stage with considerable potential for advancement. The five domains in this paper provide a basis to conceptualize the effects of culture on assessment, and provide guidelines for practice and future research in diversity and assessment.

References

Brislin, R. W. (1993). Understanding Culture"s Influence on Behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace. Butcher, J.N. (1996). International Adaptations ofthe MMPI-2: Research and Clinical Appli­

cations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

144 Joyce P. Chu et al.

Butcher, J.N. (2004). Personality assessment without borders: Adaptation of the MMPI-2 across cultures. Journal ofPersonality Arsessment, 83 (2 ), 90-104.

Butcher, J.N. (2005). MMPI-2: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: American Psychi­ atric Association.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014a). Racial & ethnic minority populations. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/remp.html

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (20146 ). Hispanic or Latino Populations. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/hispanic.html

Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F. (2003). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34 (4), 433-452.

Church, A. (2001 ). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal ofPerson­ ality, 69 (6), 979-1006.

Constantino, G., & Malgady, R.G. (2000). Multicultural and cross-cultural utility of the TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story) test. In R.H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of Cross-cultural and Multicultural Personality Arsessment (pp. 481-513). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dana, R.H. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of Cross-cultural and Multicultural Personality Arsessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dinh, T.Q., Yamada, A.M., & Yee, B.W.K. (2009). A culturally relevant conceptualization of depression: an empirical examination of the factorial structure of the Vietnamese Depression Scale. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 55 ( 6 ), 496-505.

Finn, S.E., & Tonsager, M.E. (1992). Therapeutic effects ofproviding MMPI-2 test feedback to college students awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment, 4 ( 3 ), 2 78-28 7.

Flaugher, R.L. ( 1978 ). The many definitions oftest bias. American Psychowgist, 33 (7), 671-679. Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation

issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Arsessment, 6(4), 304-312.

Grimm, S.D., & Church, A.T. (1999). A cross-cultural study ofresponse biases in personality measures. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 33 (4), 415-441.

Haga, S.M., Kraft, P., & Corby, E.K. (2009). Emotion regulation: Antecedents and well-being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in cross-cultural samples. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 10 (3), 271-291.

Hall, G.C.N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I.R. (1999). Ethnicity and psychopathology: A meta­ analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 Research. Journal of Psychological.Arsessment, 11 (2), 186-197.

Hamamura, T., Heine, S.J., & Paulhus, D.L. (2008). Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 ( 4 ), 932-942.

Heiervang, E., Goodman, A., & Goodman, R. (2008). The Nordic advantage in child mental health: separating health differences from reporting style in a cross-cultural comparison of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (6), 678-685.

Hill, J.S., Pace, T.M., & Robbins, R.R. (2010). Decolonizing personality assessment and honoring indigenous voices: A critical examination of the MMPI-2. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 (1), 16-25.

Kreilkamp, T. (1989). Time-limited, Intermittent Therapy with Children and Families. New York: Brunner/Maze!.

Laher, S. (2007). Personality re-conceptualized: Amillonian approach. South African Journal of Psychology, 37 (1 ), 82-95.

145 Diversity and Assessment

Leong, F.L., Leung, K, & Cheung, F.M. (2010). Integrating cross-cultural psychology research methods into ethnic minority psychology. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psy­ chology, 16 (4), 590-597.

Lopez, S., & Romero, A. (1988). Assessing the intellectual functioning of Spanish-speaking adults: Comparison of the EIWA and the WAIS. Journal of Processional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19 (3), 263-270.

Mak, W.W., & Zane, N.W. (2004). The phenomenon of somatization among community Chinese Americans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39 ( 12), 967-974.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52 ( 1), 81-90.

Morrison, L.L., & Downey, D.L. (2000). Racial differences in self-disclosure of suicidal ideation and reasons for living: implications for training. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6 (4), 374.

Newman, M.L., & Greenway, P. (1997). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to clients at a university counseling service: A collaborative approach. Psychological Assessment, 9 (2), 122-131.

Nichter, M. ( 1981 ). Idioms of distress: Alternatives in the expression of psychosocial distress: A case study from South India. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 5 (4), 379-408.

Norasakkunkit, V., & Kalick, S.M. (2002). Culture, ethnicity, and emotional distress measures: The role of self-construal and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (1 ), 56-70.

Pritchard, D.A., & Rosenblatt, A. ( 1980). Racial bias in the MMPI: A methodological review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48 (2), 263-267.

Ryder, A.G., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Yao, S., Yi, J., Heine, S.J., & Bagby, M. (2008). The cultural shaping of depression: Somatic symptoms in China, psychological symptoms in North America. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 117 (2), 300-313.

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995 ). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69 (5), 797-811.

Thames, A.D., Hinkin, C.H., Byrd, D.A., Bilder, R.M., Duff, KJ., Mindt, M.R., & ... Streiff, V. (2013). Effects of stereotype threat, perceived discrimination, and examiner race on neuropsychological performance: Simple as Black and White? Journal ofthe International Neuropsychological Society, 19 (5), 583-593.

Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T.D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25 (2), 195-217.

Vijver, F., & Phalet, K (2004 ). Assessment in multicultural groups: The role of acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53 (2), 215-236.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where's the 'culture' in cross-cultural transition? Compara­ tive studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 24 (2 ), 221-249.