Testing and Assessment in an International Context: Cross-and Multi-Cultural Issues

  • M. Eduarda Duarte
  • Jérôme Rossier

The reality of globalisation and the concurrent worldwide competitiveness impose a shift on intercultural research, towards an integrative background to both common and regional competencies to achieve added value and usefulness of testing and assessment techniques. Whenever a test is translated and adapted for use in another language or culture it is mandatory to know that the process begins always with evaluation: the first issue concerns the conceptual definition and the context of its operationalisation, which means the identification of the relevant contents of cultural knowledge. In this case, the ingredients of knowledge mean the understanding of how culture is expressed through beliefs and values, behavioural expressions, symbols and habits, but also mean a balance between cognitive knowledge and attributes of good judgement to deal with the culture or sub-culture variables. The close connection between these two aspects can lead to a deep awareness of construct validation research within each population for which translation or adaptation occurs.


Career Assessment International Context Career Guidance Item Bias Vocational Guidance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aluja, A., García, O., Rossier, J., & García, L. F. (2005a). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aluja, A., Rossier, J., García, L. F., & Verardi, S. (2005b). The 16PF5 and the NEO-PI-R in Spanish and Swiss samples: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (1990). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: Author, Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs, Task Force on the Delivery of Service to Ethnic Minority Populations.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, B., & Matus, Y. (2000). Test translation and cultural equivalence methodologies for use with diverse populations. In I. Cuellar & F. Paniagua (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural mental health (pp. 121–136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Association for Assessment in Counseling (2003). Standards for multicultural assessment (2nd ed.). Retrieved September 20, 2006, from
  6. Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (1992). Multicultural education and children and adolescents. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, J. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blustein, D. (2006). The psychology of working. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lorner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Butcher, J.N. (1996). Translation and adaptation of the MMPI-2 for international use. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 26–43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Casillas, A., Schulz, M., Robbins, S., Santos, P., & Lee, R. (2006). Exploring the meaning of motivation across cultures: IRT analyses of the Goal Instability Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattell, R. (1940). A culture-free intelligence test, I. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cattell, R., & Cattell, A. (1963). Culture fair intelligence test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  15. Cron, W., & Slocum, J. (1986). The influence of career stages on sales people’s job attitudes, work, perceptions, and performances. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  17. Descombes, J. (1980). Cinquante ans d’études et d’évaluation des valeurs professionnelles (1925–1975) [Fifty years of study and assessment of work values (1925–1975)]. Revue de Psychologie Appliquée, 30, 1–101.Google Scholar
  18. Duarte, M. E. (1993). Preocupações de carreira, valores e saliência das actividades em adultos empregados [Career concerns, values and role salience in employed adults]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  19. Duarte, M. E. (1995). Career concerns, values and role salience in employed men. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 338–349.Google Scholar
  20. Duarte, M. E. (2005). Assessment and “The global Research Village”: Adapting psychological instruments. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farh, J. L., Leong, F. T. L., & Law, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural validity of Holland’s model in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferreira Marques, J., & Miranda, M. J. (1995). Developing the Work Importance Study. In D. Super & B. Šverko, B. (Eds.), Life roles, values and careers (pp. 62–74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Fouad, N. A., & Byars-Winston, A. M. (2005). Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 223–233.Google Scholar
  25. Geisinger, K. F. (2003). Testing and assessment in cross-cultural psychology. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 95–117). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Guichard, J., & Lenz, J. (2005). Career theory from an international perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  27. Goh, D. S., & Yu, J. (2001). Translation and validation of the Chinese form of the Strong Interest Inventory. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 50, 252–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gopaul-McNicol, S., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Assessment and culture: Psychological tests with minority populations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hambleton, R. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 57–68.Google Scholar
  30. Hambleton, R. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244.Google Scholar
  31. Hambleton, R. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hambleton, R. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Hambleton, R., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from
  34. Hartung, P. (2005). Integrated career assessment and counseling: Mindsets, models, and methods. In W. B. Walsh & M. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 371–395). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hui, C., & Triandis, H. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Irvine, S., & Carroll, W. (1980). Testing and assessment scores across cultures: Issues in methodology and assessment. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 181–244). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Khan, S. B., & Alvi, S. A. (1991). The structure of Holland’s typology: A study in a non-Western culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Khan, S. B., Alvi, S. A., Shaukat, N., Hussain, M. A., & Baig, T. (1990). A study of the validity of Holland’s theory in a non-Western culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Leong, F. (2001). The cultural validity of Holland’s model and its implications for human resource management: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leong, F. T. L., & Brown, M. T. (1995). Theoretical issues in cross cultural career development: Cultural validity and cultural specificity. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 143–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Leong, F. T. L., & Hartung, P. J. (2000). Cross-cultural career assessment: Review and prospects for the new millennium. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leong, F. T. L., Austin, J. T., Sekaran, U., & Komarraju, M. (1998). An evaluation of the cross-cultural validity of Holland’s theory: Career choices by workers in India. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marsella, A., & Leong, F. (1995). Cross-cultural issues in personality and career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Munroe, R. H., Munroe, R. L., & Whiting, B. B. (Eds.). (1981). Handbook of cross-cultural human development. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  47. Nevill, D., & Super, D. (1986). The values scale: Theory, application, and research manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  48. Oakland, T. (2004). Use of educational and psychological tests internationally. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ponterotto, J. G., Rivera, L., & Sueyoshi, L. A. (2000). The career-in-culture interview: A semi-structured protocol for the cross-cultural intake interview. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 85–96.Google Scholar
  50. Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737–756.Google Scholar
  51. Robbins, S., & Patton, M. (1985). Self-psychology and career development: Construction of the Superiority and Goal Instability scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rossier, J. (2005). A review of cross-cultural equivalence of frequently used personality inventories. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rossier, J., Berthoud, S., & Dauwalder, J.-P. (2003). Quel est le role de l’évaluation de la personnalité pour le bilan de competence? [What is the relevance of personality measurement for professional skills assessment]. In B. Simon (Ed.), Actes du colloque: La place de l’évaluation dans le processus d’orientation professionnelle des adultes [Proceedings of the Conference: Purpose of assessment in the career counseling process] (pp. 113–123). Lomme, France: Association nationale pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes.Google Scholar
  54. Rossier, J., Meyer de Stadelhofen, F., & Berthoud, S. (2004). A comparison of the hierarchical structures of the NEO-PI-R and of the 16PF5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rossier, J., Dahourou, D., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). Structural and mean-level analyses of the Five-factor model and Locus of Control: Further evidence from Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1996). Cross-cultural structural equivalence of RIASEC models and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ryan, J. M., Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996). Generalizability of Holland’s structure of vocational interest across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Savickas, M. (1989). Career-style assessment and counseling. In T. Sweeney (Ed.), Adlerian counseling: A practical approach for a new decade (3rd ed., pp. 289–320). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development Press.Google Scholar
  59. Savickas, M. (1995). Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology: Convergence, divergence, and schism. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Savickas, M. (2004). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Savickas, M., Passen, A., & Jarjoura, D. (1988). Career concerns and coping as indicators of adult vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Savickas, M., Van Esbroeck, R., & Herr, E. (2005). The internationalization of educational and vocational guidance. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 77–85.Google Scholar
  63. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cross-cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spini, D. (2003). Measurement equivalence of 10 values types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 64–88.Google Scholar
  69. Super, D. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  70. Super, D., & Nevill, D. (1985). The salience inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Formerly published by Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  71. Super, D., & Šverko, B. (1995). Life roles, values and careers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  72. Super, D., Kidd, J., & Knasel, E. (1980). Work values and work salience: A survey of literature in fourteen countries. Cambridge, England: National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling.Google Scholar
  73. Super, D., Thompson, A., & Lindeman. R. (1985). The adult career concerns inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  74. Tanzer, N., & Sim, C. O. (1999). Adapting instruments for use in multiple languages and cultures: A review of ITC guidelines for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Measurement, 15, 258–269.Google Scholar
  75. Van de Vijver, F. (2000). The nature of bias. In R. H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment (pp. 87–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Van de Vijver, F., & Poortinga, Y. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van de Vijver, F., & Poortinga, Y. (2002). On the study of culture in developmental science. Human Development, 45, 246–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  81. Warner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A Handbook of cultural anthropology (pp. 398–419). New York: American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
  82. Watson, M., Duarte, M. E., & Glavin, K. (2005). Cross-cultural perspectives on career assessment. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 29–35.Google Scholar
  83. Wonderlic Inc. (1983). Wonderlic personnel test manual. Northfield, IL: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Eduarda Duarte
    • 1
  • Jérôme Rossier
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.University of LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations