Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 138–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Assessing the predictive validity of cultural intelligence over time

Colleen Ward ⇑, Jessie Wilson, Ronald FischerCentre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 October 2010Received in revised form 17 March 2011Accepted 22 March 2011Available online 17 April 2011

Keywords:Cultural intelligencePsychological and sociocultural adaptationproblemsLongitudinalInternational studentsMotivation

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.032

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Colleen Ward,Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellingto6140, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 4 4636037; fax: +64 4 4

E-mail address: colleen.ward@vuw.ac.nz (C. Ward

a b s t r a c t

The study examines four core components of cultural intelligence (CQ) – Behavioral, Motivational, Cog-nitive and Meta-cognitive – as predictors of cross-cultural adaptation problems in a longitudinal study ofinternational students in New Zealand and tests the hypothesis that Motivational CQ predicts better psy-chological and sociocultural outcomes over time. One hundred and four students completed measures ofCQ during a pre-term orientation program and assessments of adaptation problems approximately threemonths later. In line with the hypothesis, bi-variate correlations indicated that Motivational CQ wasrelated to fewer psychological symptoms (r = �.30, p < .01) and sociocultural adaptation problems(r = �.27, p < .01). However, hierarchical regression analysis, controlling for age, gender, length of resi-dence abroad and region of origin, revealed that while Motivational CQ was a significant (negative) pre-dictor (ß = �.36, p < .01) of psychological symptoms, the overall amount of variance explained (14.6%) inthe model was not significant. In contrast, region of origin (ß = .37, p < .01) was the only significant pre-dictor of sociocultural adaptation problems with international students from Western countries reportingfewer difficulties than those from other regions. The results are discussed in relation to contemporarytheories of motivation along with recommendations for future research.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Cultural intelligence (CQ) has been defined as ‘‘a person’s capa-bility to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts’’ (Earley & Ang,2003, p. 59). CQ is a multi-dimensional construct made up of fourcore ‘‘intelligences’’: Meta-cognitive, Cognitive, Motivational andBehavioral. Meta-cognitive CQ reflects an individual’s culturalawareness during interactions with people from different culturalbackgrounds while Cognitive CQ relates to an individual’s knowl-edge of specific norms, practices and conventions in new culturalsettings. Motivational CQ captures a person’s drive to learn moreabout and function effectively in culturally varied situations. Final-ly, Behavioral CQ is conceptualized as an individual’s flexibility indemonstrating appropriate actions in encounters with people fromdifferent cultural backgrounds. On this basis, the Cultural Intelli-gence Scale (CQS) was initially constructed and validated by Ang,Van Dyne, Koh, and Ng (2004) and further validated by Van Dyne,Ang, and Koh (2008).

Despite much discussion of CQ as a basis for explaining individ-ual differences in the ability to adapt to new cultural settings, therehas been limited empirical research published on its predictivevalidity. Ang et al. (2004, 2007) reported that Cognitive and

ll rights reserved.

Centre for Applied Cross-n, P.O. Box 600, Wellington635402.

).

Meta-cognitive CQ were related to performance on a cultural judg-ment and decision-making task; Behavioral CQ was linked to gen-eral cultural adjustment; and Meta-cognitive and Behavioral CQpredicted work-related task performance. However, amongst thefour domains of cultural intelligence, it is Motivational CQ thathas most consistently related to adaptive outcomes. Studies haveconfirmed that Motivational CQ predicts work, interaction andgeneral adjustment (Ang et al., 2004, 2007; Templer, Tay, &Chandrasekar, 2006; Ward & Fischer, 2008). It has also been asso-ciated with lower levels of depression and fewer social problemsduring cross-cultural transition (Ward, Fischer, Lam, & Hall,2009). None of these studies to date, however, has examined thepredictive validity of CQ over time, despite recent calls for longitu-dinal research on cultural intelligence, cultural adjustment, andcultural effectiveness (Lee & Sukoco, 2010). This is a significantomission given that Earley and Ang (2003) and Earley and Peterson(2004) have argued that CQ directly affects cross-cultural adjust-ment and work performance and that it may be used as an assess-ment tool to evaluate readiness for overseas assignments andtraining needs.

To address this shortcoming, this study examines the predictivevalidity of CQ domains in a longitudinal study of cross-culturaladaptation problems in international students in New Zealand. Inaccordance with contemporary models of acculturation, distinc-tions are made between psychological and sociocultural outcomes(Sam, 2006; Ward, 2001). The first refers to psychological or emo-tional well-being versus distress, and the second relates to the

C. Ward et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 138–142 139

presence or absence of social skills and cultural competencies. Inshort, these domains encompass affective and behavioral changes,which when adaptive, reflect ‘‘feeling well’’ and ‘‘doing well’’,respectively (van de Vijver, & Phalet, 2004). The predictive validityof all CQ domains is investigated in this study, but in light of pre-vious research, emphasis is placed on Motivational CQ.

1.1. Motivational CQ

Individuals with high Motivational CQ have a strong desire toexperience cultural novelty; they enjoy interacting with peoplefrom diverse backgrounds and set their goals accordingly; and theyhave a strong sense of self-efficacy in cross-cultural contexts. Thisconceptualization of CQ captures the drive component of culturalintelligence (Livermore, 2009). It also incorporates aspects of Ryanand Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory (SDT), particularly theimportance of individual interests and the role of intrinsic motiva-tion, and Bandura’s (1997) Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) with itsemphasis on the effects of expectations on performance.

International research guided by both SDT and SET hasdemonstrated the positive influence of motivation on cross-culturaladaptation. Studies by Chirkov and colleagues have shown thatself-determined motivation leads to enhanced academic performanceand greater subjective well-being in international students (Chirkov,Vansteenkiste, Tao, & Lynch, 2007) and that it predicts theirpsychological and sociocultural adaptation over time (Chirkov,Safdar, de Guzman, & Playford, 2008). In addition, self-efficacyhas been linked to better psychological, sociocultural and academicadaptation in sojourners and immigrants (Leung, 2001; Mak &Nesdale, 2001; Tsang, 2001). These studies suggest that both intrinsicmotivation, based on personal interest and enjoyment, and self-efficacy, based on context-specific expectations about success innavigating a new cultural environment, contribute to adaptive out-comes. As there is a substantial body of research that has demon-strated that the more general concept of self-efficacy leads togreater success in various life domains (Bandura, 1986), Motiva-tional CQ may be the starting point for effective integration in anew cultural context and the main driving force behind successfuladaptation to a new environment (Livermore, 2009). Therefore, it ishypothesized that Motivational CQ will predict fewer psychologi-cal and sociocultural adaptation problems over time.

2. Methods

2.1. Measures

In addition to personal background information (age, gender,nationality and length of residence), participants completed a mea-sure of Cultural Intelligence at Time 1 and measures of psycholog-ical and sociocultural adaptation problems at Time 2. Thepsychometric properties of the scales are presented in Table 1.

2.1.1. Cultural intelligenceThe 20-item CQ measure by Ang et al. (2004) was used in this

study. The measure is composed of four subscales: Cognitive (6items, a = 0 .82), Meta-cognitive (4 items, a = 0.80), Behavioral (5items, a = 0.78) and Motivational (5 items, a = 0.76). Examples in-clude: ‘‘I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures’’(Cognitive); ‘‘I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use wheninteracting with people from different cultural backgrounds’’(Meta-cognitive); ‘‘I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it’’ (Behavioral); and ‘‘I enjoy interactingwith people from different cultures’’ (Motivational). Responses aremade on 5-point agree-disagree scales, and higher scores indicatea higher level of cultural intelligence. The proposed four-factorial

structure has been supported in various studies (Ang et al., 2004;Ward et al., 2009).

2.1.2. Psychological adaptation problemsA measure of Psychological Symptoms, originally constructed

for the International Comparative Study of Ethno-cultural Youth(ICSEY), which involved over 5000 immigrant youth from 26 ethnicgroups across 13 countries of settlement (Berry, Phinney, Sam, &Vedder, 2006), was used in this study. The 15-item assessmentwas based on work by Beiser and Fleming (1986), Kinzie et al.(1982) and Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman (1991). Five pointscales (endpoints: not at all /very often) are used as response op-tions to items that tap depression, anxiety and psycho-somaticsymptoms, e.g., ‘‘I worry a lot of the time’’, ‘‘I feel sick in thestomach’’, and ‘‘I feel unhappy and sad’’. The total scale scoresfrom 15–75 with higher scores indicating greater symptoms ofpsychological distress. Mean item scores are used in this study.

Although the Psychological Symptoms scale taps depression,anxiety and psycho-somatic symptoms, Berry et al. (2006) re-ported a robust uni-factorial structure. The measure was subjectedto a standard treatment where pooled data from all immigrantyouth were used as the basis for estimating an averaged covariancematrix. Then the factor structure produced by each sub-sample(each ethnic group in each country of settlement, n = 41) was com-pared to the factor structure of the pooled global matrix with theTucker’s phi to ensure structural equivalence across ethnic and na-tional groups. Psychological Symptoms was uni-dimensional withthe first factor (eigenvalue = 5.98) accounting for 40% of the vari-ance; the mean Cronbach alpha was .88, and the Tucker’s phiwas >.90 in all sub-samples. Therefore, this measure has the advan-tage of demonstrated structural equivalence across culturally di-verse samples, making it particularly appropriate for use with aheterogeneous sample of international students. In this study theCronbach alpha was 0.89.

2.1.3. Sociocultural adaptation problemsSociocultural adaptation problems were assessed with the

Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS; Ward & Kennedy, 1999), a23-item measure that taps the amount of difficulty experiencedin negotiating everyday situations in a new cultural milieu (e.g.,shopping, making oneself understood, making friends). Five-pointrating scales (endpoints: no difficulty/extreme difficulty) are utilizedwith higher scores indicating more adaptation problems. The SCASis a uni-dimensional measure that has been used extensively in so-journer research and has demonstrated good reliability and valid-ity with a wide variety of cross-cultural samples. Ward andKennedy (1999) reported a median Cronbach alpha of 0.86 over16 cross-sectional samples; in this study the Cronbach alpha was0.90.

To test the discriminant validity of the dependent measures, weconducted a confirmatory factor analysis with MPlus6 (Muthén &Muthén, 1998–2010). Due to the ratio of both the number of scaleitems and the number of parameters to the overall sample size, weused item parcels. The two dimensional solution fitted significantlybetter than a single factor solution: Dv2 (2) = 140.35, p < .001. Thefit indices for the single factor model were consistently worse:CFI = .68, TLI = .55, SRMR = .16; whereas the two-factor solutionshowed adequate fit: CFI = .97, TLI = .95; SRMR = .06. The correla-tion between the two instruments was .19 and not significant,which shows their empirical independence.

2.2. Participants and procedure

Two hundred and seventy international students enrolled in aNew Zealand university completed Time 1 measures of CQ duringthe orientation program before commencement of the academic

Table 1Psychometric Properties of the Measurement Scales and Correlations between Demographic Factors and CQ at Time 1 with Psychological and Sociocultural Outcomes at Time 2.

Measures Mean (SD) Range Alpha 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 21.86 (3.26) 18–36 – .04 .07 �.21* .15 .14 .10 .15 .03 -.022. Gender – – – �.06 .16 �.02 �.06 �.09 .04 �.12 .063. LoR 2.4 (6.25) 1–53 – .14 .05 �.03 .08 .06 .08 .114. Cult Dist – – – �.13 �.22* �.25* �.38** .19 .41**

5. B-CQ 4.79 (0.93) 2.80–6.60 0.78 .65** .51** .55** �.14 �.126. MC-CQ 5.01 (0.86) 3.25–7.00 0.80 .57** .56** �.14 �.22*

7. C-CQ 3.86 (0.98) 1.50–6.50 0.82 .50** �.07 �.148. M-CQ 5.23 (0.87) 3.00–7.00 0.76 �.30* .27**

9. Psych Symptoms 2.18 (0.66) 1.00–3.87 0.89 .1910. SC Diff 1.82 (0.57) 1.00–4.87 0.90

Notes: LoR = Length of Residence in months; Cult Dist = Cultural Distance; B-CQ = Behavioral CQ; MC-CQ = Meta-cognitive CQ; C-CQ = Cognitive CQ; M- CQ = Motivational CQ;Psych Symptoms = Psychological Symptoms; and SC Diff = Sociocultural Difficulties.Mean item scores are reported for all measures. CQ scales score 1–7; Psychological Symptoms and Sociocultural Difficulties score 1–5. Higher scores indicate greater CQ, morepsychological symptoms and greater sociocultural difficulties. Gender is coded as 1 = female and 2 = male; Cultural Distance is coded 1 = low and 2 = high.* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 2The Prediction of Psychological and Sociocultural Adaptation Problems.

Predictors Sociocultural difficulties Psychological symptoms

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age .06 .07 .08 .10Gender �.01 .00 �.16 �.12Cultural Distance .42** .37* .21 .07LoR .05 .05 .03 .07B-CQ .05 .01MC-CQ �.12 .03C-CQ .05 .03M-CQ �.11 �.36*

R2 change .021 .086R2 .174** .195* .061 .146F change 0.57 2.23F (df) 2.70* (8, 89) 1.91 (8, 89)

Notes: LoR = length of residence; B-CQ = Behavioral CQ; MC-CQ = Meta-cognitiveCQ; C-CQ = Cognitive CQ; M-CQ = Motivational CQ.* p < .01.** p < .001.

140 C. Ward et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 138–142

term. Approximately three months later 104 of these studentscompleted the measures of adaptation problems. The attrition ratewas 61.5%, but analysis revealed that there were no significantdifferences in Behavioral (t[360] = �1.28, ns), Cognitive (t[361] =�.085, ns), Meta-cognitive (t[365] = �.84, ns) and Motivational(t[358] = �1.30, ns) CQ between those who did and did not com-plete the Time 2 measures. Nor was there a difference in comple-tion rates by international students from Western (28.7%) versusother (25.6%) countries (std residual = .40, ns).

Of the 104 students who participated in the longitudinal study,64.1% were female, and their mean age was 21.86 years (SD = 3.26).Students had resided in New Zealand from 1 to 53 months(M = 2.42, SD = 6.27) when the first survey was completed; how-ever, only three students had resided in New Zealand for more thanone year.

The sample was diverse in terms of geographical representationand included students from 25 countries. Students were groupedinto two categories on the basis of their region of origin to reflectlow and high cultural distance. The low cultural distance group(n = 63) included students from North America (Canada and theUnited States) and Europe (e.g., Sweden, the United Kingdom, Ire-land, Finland, Switzerland, France). The high cultural distancegroup (n = 41) was composed of students primarily from Asia(e.g., Malaysia, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, Sri Lan-ka), but also included a small number of students from SouthAmerica, the Pacific and the Caribbean. The measurement of cul-tural distance on the basis of region of origin has been used effec-tively in earlier studies of cross-cultural transition and adaptationproblems (Furnham & Bochner, 1982).

3. Results

Table 1 reports the bi-variate correlations between demo-graphic factors and CQ measures at Time 1 and psychologicaland sociocultural outcomes at Time 2. As expected, the table showsthat Motivational CQ is related to fewer psychological symptoms(r = �.30, p < .01) and fewer sociocultural difficulties (r = �.27,p < .01). Meta-cognitive CQ was also associated with better socio-cultural outcomes (r = �.22, p < .05).

Hierarchical regression analysis was used for the prediction ofadaptation problems (psychological symptoms and socioculturaldifficulties) with age, gender, length of residence (LoR) and culturaldistance entered as controls in the first step and the CQ subscalesfrom Time 1 entered in the second step (see Table 2).1 The accom-

1 Analyses repeated both without LoR and without the three LoR outliers(>12 months in New Zealand) yielded the same significant predictors.

panying VIF (range: 1.04–2.03) and tolerance (range: 0.49–0.96) sta-tistics were within an acceptable range in all analyses.

The predictive model for sociocultural problems was significantand explained 19.5% of the variance in the outcome measure; F (8,89) = 2.70, p < .02. This was due to the block entry of demographicfactors in the first step (r2 = .174, p < .001), specifically the influ-ence of cultural distance (ß = .42, p < .001). Students from Westerncountries, i.e., regions characterized by relatively low levels of cul-tural distance, experienced fewer sociocultural difficulties. Regionof origin (ß = .37, p < .001) remained significant in the second step,but the CQ subscales were not significantly related to socioculturaladaptation problems in the final model.2

In contrast, the model for psychological symptoms was onlymarginally significant, explaining 14.6% of the variance; F (8,89) = 1.91, p < .07. Although neither step in the regression model ac-counted for a significant amount of variance, Motivational CQ wasshown to predict fewer psychological symptoms (ß = �.36, p < .01).

4. Discussion

The study addressed a significant gap in empirical researchby examining the predictive validity of CQ over time. It was

2 Hierarchical regression analysis performed with only M-CQ entered in the secondep also showed that cultural distance (ß = .37) was the only significant predictor ofciocultural difficulties; M-CQ (ß = �.13).

stso

C. Ward et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 138–142 141

hypothesized that Motivational CQ, assessed at the beginning of anacademic term, would predict psychological and sociocultural out-comes for international students three months later. Bi-variate cor-relations were in line with the hypothesis; Motivational CQ wasrelated to fewer sociocultural difficulties and fewer psychologicalsymptoms. In addition, Meta-cognitive CQ was associated withbetter sociocultural outcomes. The link between Motivational CQand psychological symptoms remained stable in the predictivemodel, which controlled for demographic characteristics includingage, gender, length of residence and region of origin (cultural dis-tance). In the case of sociocultural difficulties, however, neitherMotivational nor Meta-cognitive CQ accounted for a significantamount of variance in the outcome over and above the influenceof cultural distance.

Motivational CQ has been described as a drive and interest inlearning about and functioning in new and different cultural set-tings (Ang et al., 2004; Livermore, 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2008).It is closely related to intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, whichhave been shown to improve performance and increase the likeli-hood of goal attainment. It is not surprising, therefore, that Motiva-tional CQ is related to better psychological and socioculturaloutcomes during cross-cultural transition.

Meta-cognitive CQ was also associated with fewer socioculturaladaptation problems. This is consistent with an earlier study byWard, Berno, and Main (2002), which reported a link betweenPerceptual Acuity as assessed by Kelley and Meyers’ (1995)Cross-cultural Adaptability Inventory and positive socioculturaloutcomes. Defined as ‘‘the extent to which a person pays attentionto and accurately perceives various aspects of the environment’’(Kelley & Meyers, 1995, p. 16), Perceptual Acuity overlaps withMeta-cognitive CQ (see also Ang et al., 2007). Both can be seen asadding a sense of cultural awareness to intercultural interactionsand enhancing culturally-specific skilled behaviors.

Despite the bi-variate links between CQ, psychological symp-toms and sociocultural difficulties, the regression models of adap-tation problems did not provide strong support of CQ’s incrementaland predictive validity. The significant relationship between Moti-vational CQ and psychological adaptation problems was retained inthe predictive model; however, the model as a whole was not sig-nificant. It did, nonetheless, explain 14.6% of the variance, which isnoteworthy considering the three-month time lag and the magni-tude of life changes experienced by international students in theearly months of cross-cultural transition. Effect sizes smallerthan this can have significant health and economic implications(Rutledge & Loh, 2004), and findings suggest that understandingthe role of motivation in making successful cross-cultural transi-tions may assist counsellors and other support staff who work withinternational students.

In the sociocultural domain, however, cultural distance, used asa control variable in this study, emerged as the only significant pre-dictor of adaptation problems. This association is in accordancewith culture learning theory, which is concerned with the factorsthat facilitate and impede the acquisition of culture-specific skillsand competencies. Given that related research has consistentlydemonstrated that cultural distance is a robust predictor of socio-cultural difficulties (Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Galchenko & vande Vijver, 2007; Searle & Ward, 1990; Ward & Kennedy, 1999), itmay not be surprising that Motivational CQ failed to demonstrateincremental validity in the predictive model of sociocultural adap-tation problems.

Although this is the first study to report a longitudinal analysisof CQ’s predictive validity, it is not without its limitations. Theattrition rate between Times 1 and 2 was over half. The study onlyincluded negative indicators of cross-cultural adaptation (psycho-logical symptoms and sociocultural difficulties) and did not assessadaptation problems at Time 1. Future research might examine CQ

in relation to both positive and negative indicators of psychologicaland sociocultural adaptation and the changes in the patterns ofadaptation over time.

In conclusion, our longitudinal findings demonstrate a negativerelationship between Motivational CQ and adaptation problems inboth psychological and sociocultural domains; however, theresearch has not produced findings that convincingly supportMotivational CQ’s predictive validity in terms of a unique,independent and significant contribution to the explanation ofcross-cultural adaptation problems. Indeed, in the case of sociocul-tural difficulties, cultural distance rather than cultural intelligenceemerged as a significant predictor of the outcome over time. Nev-ertheless, we recognize the merit in pursuing further research onthe role of motivation in cross-cultural transition and adaptation.In light of current motivation-based theories in psychology, thisarea appears rich with potential contributions to the literature onacculturation and adaptation (Gezentsvey & Ward, 2008). Theoverall paucity of studies investigating motivation and cross-cul-tural adaptation signals the need for the continued exploration ofthese constructs within the acculturation field.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the School of Psychology,Victoria University of Wellington, for funding the research andMichelle Gezentsvey and Leonie Hall for assistance with datacollection.

References

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y. (2004).The measurement of cultural intelligence.Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting’s Symposium onCultural Intelligence in the 21st Century. New Orleans, LA.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Culturalintelligence. Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision-making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management andOrganization Review, 3, 335–371.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Beiser, M., & Fleming, J. A. E. (1986). Measuring psychiatric disorder among

Southeast Asian refugees. Psychological Medicine, 16, 627–639.Berry, J. W., Phinney, J., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in

cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chirkov, V., Safdar, S., de Guzman, J., & Playford, K. (2008). Further examining therole motivation to study abroad plays in the adaptation of internationalstudents in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 427–440.

Chirkov, V., Vansteenkiste, M., Tao, R., & Lynch, M. (2007). The role of self-determined motivation and goals for study abroad in the adaptation ofinternational students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31,199–222.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence. Individual interactions acrosscultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Culturalintelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 100–118.

Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empiricalanalysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interactions (pp. 161–198). Oxford: Pergamon.

Galchenko, I., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distancein the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 31, 181–197.

Gezentsvey, M., & Ward, C. (2008). Unveiling agency: A motivational perspective onacculturation and adaptation. In R. Sorrentino & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbookof motivation and cognition across cultures (pp. 213–235). San Diego: Elsevier.

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). The Cross-cultural Adaptability Inventory. Minneapolis,MN: National Computer Systems.

Kinzie, J. D., Manson, S. M., Vinh, D. T., Tolan, N. T., Anh, B., & Pho, T. N. (1982).Development and validation of a Vietnamese-language depression rating scale.American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1276–1281.

Lee, L.-Y., & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriateperformance. The moderating effects of international experience. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 963–981.

Leung, C. (2001). The adaptation of overseas and migrant students in Australia.International Journal of Psychology, 36, 251–259.

142 C. Ward et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 138–142

Livermore, D. (2009). Leading with cultural Intelligence. The new secret to success. NewYork: AMACOM.

Mak, A. S., & Nesdale, D. (2001). Migrant distress: The role of perceiveddiscrimination and coping resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31,2632–2647.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Version 6. Los Angeles,CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Robinson, P. R., Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personalityand social psychology attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rutledge, T., & Loh, C. (2004). Effect sizes and statistical testing in the determinationof clinical significance in behavioral medicine research. Annals of BehavioralMedicine, 27, 138–145.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation ofintrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55, 68–78.

Sam, D. L. (2006). Acculturation: Conceptual background and core components. InD. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturationpsychology (pp. 11–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and socioculturaladjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.

Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence,realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview and cross-culturaladjustment. Group and Organization Management, 31(3), 154–171.

Tsang, E. (2001). Adjustment of mainland Chinese academics and students toSingapore. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 347–372.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Phalet, K. (2004). Assessment in multicultural groups:The role of acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53,215–236.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S.Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence. Theory, measurementand applications (pp. 16–38). New York: Sharpe.

Ward, C. (2001). The ABCs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbookof culture and psychology (pp. 411–445). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Ward, C., Berno, T., & Main, A. (2002). Can the CCAI predict sojourner adjustment? InP. Boski, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & A. M. Chodynicka (Eds.), New directions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 409–423). Warsaw: Polish Academy of SciencesPublishers.

Ward, C., & Fischer, R. (2008). Personality and cultural intelligence. A test of themediation hypothesis. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of culturalintelligence. Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 159–173). New York:Sharpe.

Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, F. S. Z., & Hall, L. (2009). Convergent, discriminant andincremental validity of a self-report measure of cultural intelligence.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 85–105.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659–677.