Research with ethnic minority and subcultural groups is often stymied by measures developed on samples of European Americans. This chapter presentsrecommendations to help researchers create measuresthat are sensitive to both the culture and the communitiesof research participants.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 98, Winter 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 57
Creating Culturally Sensitive andCommunity-Sensitive Measures ofDevelopment
Nancy A. Busch-Rossnagel
In 1993, I received a grant from the National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development to study socioemotional development in Dominicanand Puerto Rican toddlers. I was particularly interested in how the social-izing environment provided by these childrens families would influence thedevelopment of mastery motivation and related aspects of the self-concept(Busch-Rossnagel, Knauf-Jensen, and DesRosiers, 1995). However, my abil-ity to explore such influence was limited by the dearth of instruments toassess several of the constructs of interest, such as child-rearing practices,that would be part of the socializing environment in Puerto Rican andDominican families.
Many colleagues are amazed when they look carefully at the goal of thegrant and realize that I was funded to create culturally appropriate mea-sures of child-rearing practices and toddler development. Their amazementcomes from the conventional wisdom that you cant get funding for instru-ment development. However, my experience contradicted that conventionalwisdom because, I believe, I clearly documented the need for new instru-ments and articulated the methods for creating valid measures. Many peo-ple acknowledge the need for new or revised instruments that reflect thecultural diversity of the population, but they dont know how to addressthis need. The point of this chapter is to share with you the steps we usedto create measures that are culturally appropriate and sensitive to the needsof the communities in which we work. In my lab, we developed both stan-dardized observational techniques and questionnaire measures (DesRosiers
58 SCIENCE FOR SOCIETY
and others, 1999; Dichter-Blancher, Busch-Rossnagel, and Knauf-Jensen,1997). I will be sharing examples of the creation of the questionnairesbecause they are harder to develop.
Apply Practices from Other Fields
The first suggestion I would make to developmental psychologists is to com-bine our own best practices with the contributions of other fields in identi-fying good practices for working with subcultural and community groups.One of the strengths of applied developmental psychology is its rigorousresearch methodology, particularly that of the classic experiment. Much ofthe developmental research on subcultural or ethnic minority groups usesthis approach to make comparisons between majority samples of EuropeanAmericans and minority or subcultural groups, such as Puerto Ricans andDominicans.
However, from the standpoint of experimental design, these compar-isons are flawed. Because we cannot randomly assign majority or minoritystatus or cultural background, our research designs do not control poten-tial confounding variables, such as language, education, income level, andso on. Because of these confounds, such comparisons do little to enhanceour understanding of the role that psychological processes underlying cul-ture play in development (Busch-Rossnagel, 1992).
This is where another strength of applied developmental psychology,its acquaintance with other disciplines, can play an instrumental role. In myresearch with subcultural groups, I used a concept from cultural anthro-pology and cross-cultural or ethnopsychology: contrast cultures. Contrastcultures provide a different way of looking at majority-minority compar-isons. Much research done in cultural anthropology is done with culturesthat are strikingly different from the American culture. A culture that is sig-nificantly different from your own provides an opportunity to examine theethnocentricity of the assumptions of your research.
In cultural psychology, the dimension that extends from an individual-istic to a collectivistic orientation is receiving considerable attention. On thisdimension, traditional Hispanic cultures represent a contrast to the predom-inant European American culture of our society (Triandis, 1989). Americanculture has been characterized as an individualistic culture, one that empha-sizes independence and separation from relationships such as family, com-munity, and clan. In contrast, Hispanic cultures are seen as collectivistic orinterdependent, with an emphasis on familial and communal relatedness.
In addition to the notion of cultural orientation, anthropology andcross-cultural psychology are full of examples of participant observation orethnography. In ethnography, the researcher lives in the community and getsthe insider view of the group. The experiences are documented through care-ful observation. Ethnography is very expensive in terms of time: observationoften takes years. I didnt have the luxury of years to learn about Latino
CREATING CULTURALLY SENSITIVE AND COMMUNITY-SENSITIVE MEASURES 59
socialization efforts, but I did emphasize careful observation in my researchwith Puerto Rican families. Such observations were responsible for enlarg-ing our concept of mastery motivation to explore the relationship to socialinteractions and self-concept.
Mastery motivation is the impetus to achieve and improve ones skillsin the absence of any physical rewardthe mastery of the environmentseems to be the reward in itself (Busch-Rossnagel, 1997). Examples of mas-tery motivation would be learning to put pieces in a puzzle or finding outhow a toy CD player worked. Most research on mastery motivation focusedon young children working by themselves to explore and use a toy in a goal-oriented or task-directed manner (Morgan, Busch-Rossnagel, Maslin-Cole,and Harmon, 1992). The standardized method used to measure masterymotivation emphasized the childrens independent actions, so we quanti-fied mastery motivation as childrens persistence in working on a task andtheir pleasure while doing so.
Testing Puerto Rican toddlers with our standardized measures of mas-tery motivation, we carefully observed the reactions of Puerto Rican chil-dren and noted that they showed much more social referencing than theAnglo toddlers I had tested before (Busch-Rossnagel, Vargas, Knauf, andPlanos, 1993). Social referencing is when a young child looks to a moreknowledgeable partner to interpret a situation, as when children who falllook around for a parents reaction. If the response is a laugh and a smile,then the child laughs. But if the parent says, Oh no! Are you OK? Dontcry! then the child will start to cry.
The standardized testing of mastery motivation called for adults to redi-rect the childs attention to the toy and to encourage task-directed actionswith the toys. However, our observations showed us that the Puerto Ricanchildren often persisted in attempting to interact with the adults. I startedwondering if the children were more motivated toward interactions withpeople than toward mastery of objects.
Theoretical work (Harter, 1978) suggested that mastery motivation canbe observed in several domains, and several researchers (Barrett andMorgan, 1995; Combs and Wachs, 1993; MacTurk and others, 1985) hadexpanded their notion of mastery motivation in young children to includeactions directed toward people. This expansion of the concept of masterymotivation seemed to fit with our observations of Puerto Rican toddlers.When adults had redirected the toddlers attention back to the toys, sometoddlers focused again on the task associated with the toy (fitting the shapesinto openings on a shape sorter). However, other toddlers created their owntasks, and most of these tasks involved social interactions. The best exam-ple of this was one boy who used the shapes for the shape sorter to createan imaginary zoo. The animals interacted with each other, had to go tosleep, and so on!
The members of my lab discussed these observations of social interac-tions and eventually proposed the hypothesis that social mastery motivation
60 SCIENCE FOR SOCIETY
may be more compatible with collectivistic cultures than object-orientedmastery motivation. Thus, if we were to understand the development of mas-tery motivation in Dominican and Puerto Rican toddlers we had to look atsocial mastery motivation as well as object-oriented mastery motivation.
I could have spent years making observations of young children agedfifteen to forty-two months in social interactions to develop a measure ofsocial mastery motivation. To speed up the process, we turned to theexperts, Puerto Rican and Dominican parents of young children. We usedthe methodology of focus groups, a technique common in social psychology.This method is ideal for a study that seeks to identify constructs because itavoids experimenter bias by allowing participants to express themselvesfreely; the facilitator of the focus group keeps the discussion on the topic,but does not lead the discussion.
We used a series of focus group discussions to identify examples ofsocial mastery motivation and to gather information about the socializationenvironment. In the first set of focus groups, we asked Puerto Rican andDominican parents to react to some vignettes describing the behaviors ofyoung children in social situations. We also asked them to describe somesimilar situations with children that they had observed. From our focusgroups we identified six domains of socioemotional development related tomastery motivation: persistence directed toward objects, social mastery withpeers, social mastery with adults, autonomy or self-assertion, self-evaluation,and self-regulation. For each of