Pages

Wednesday, 22 March 2023

Safe cross-cultural practice

When working with a client, it may become apparent that the client is lacking some self-knowledge to assist with exploring their career options and may benefit from an assessment to uncover more information. The client themselves may even request a particular test. Before we embark on selecting and administering any instrument we may be considering, there are a number of factors to take into account (Osborn & Zunker, 2016).

To demonstrate competency as a career development practitioner, the Career Development Association of New Zealand's Competency Framework reminds us we need to “understand the validity, reliability, norm group issues, and technical merits and limitations of relevant career development assessment tools, interventions, techniques and approaches, and their applicability to [our] clients” (CDANZ, 2018, p. 6). Further, practitioners should “Represent services, qualifications, and experience accurately and fully, and only undertake those practices for which they are qualified and in circumstances where they have appropriate experience” (CDANZ, 2016). It is worth looking abroad for alternative guidance when considering assessment tools. The US National Career Development Association states that “when possible, use multiple forms of assessment” and that there is an obligation for career development practitioners to “use caution when selecting assessments for culturally diverse populations to avoid the use of instruments that lack appropriate psychometric properties for the client population” (NCDA, 2015, p. 14).

Assessment tools are broadly split into two categories, namely quantitative or qualitative. They are used for measuring individual characteristics such as values, skills, abilities, interests and personality; and to indicate how these characteristics may connect with occupational selection (Swanson & Fouad, 2020). Quantitative tools are standardised tests; therefore, the psychometric properties of validity, reliability and norms hold high importance when considering the use of instruments that fall within this category (Osborn & Zunker, 2016).

As an example, we may have a client who is unsure of the types of occupations available which would be congruent with their interests therefore we may suggest the use of an interest inventory. Grounded in Parson’s trait and factor theory, Holland’s theory of career choice is still influential in New Zealand career practice models (Furbish, 2012), and categorises individuals into a combination of vocational personality types of Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Commonly know as Holland Codes or RIASEC, these codes have been integrated into the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), the US Labor Department's national database of US occupations. An online assessment can be taken on O*Net’s website (also run by the US Labor Department).

Another tool based on RIASEC codes is the Strong Interest Inventory which is highly recommended for use as the “best interest assessment available for career counsellors” (Buros Center for Testing, 2010). Selecting the Strong Interest Inventory as the choice of assessment instrument for the client would then require checking the validity, and reliability of the tool and whether appropriate normalisation data was available (Osborn & Zunker, 2016). Validity refers to the question of whether the test is measuring what it is supposed to be measuring and the review undertaken by the Buros Centre for Testing (2010; Osborn & Zunker, 2016) confirms that it has high validity. The degree to which test results are error-free and the consistency of the obtained data are both factors in reliability and again the review from the Buros Center for Testing (2010; Osborn & Zunker, 2016) marks the test well in this domain. Norms relate to the groups for whom the test was designed or for whom it has been demonstrated to have value and should be considered in part when determining whether a test is appropriate (Osborn & Zunker, 2016).

Another important consideration relates to norms and there appears to be no normalisation data available for any population groups within New Zealand currently. A technical brief for The Strong Interest Inventory has been prepared to determine the cultural validity and norms for the Australian population with findings which “suggest that the Strong assessment functions with people in Australia similarly to how it functions with the U.S. General Representative Sample and other international samples” (Donnay et al., 2013). There has been suggestion that the Australian norms could be suitable for use in New Zealand however, there is no empirical research to support this suggestion.

When comparing people from different cultures, four levels of equivalence for us to check through before commencing have been suggested (Fouad, 1993. pp. 8-9, citing Lonner, 1985):

  1. Functional Equivalence: Checking to see behaviours are the same across different cultures
  2. Conceptual Equivalence: Check that the meanings of actions or constructs are the same across different cultures
  3. Metric Equivalence: A scale measures the same concepts across cultures
  4. Linguistic Equivalence: Check that the meaning of translated words is the same across cultures.

Although “some interest models are equivalent across culture, this does not imply that the behaviors linked to interests are also equivalent. It is anticipated that there will be greater evidence of behavioral differences in occupational choice across cultures than in interests themselves” (Tao et al., 2019, pp. 666—667). Additionally, current research on “measures and models are not supportive of construct equivalence of RIASEC scales across cultures” (p. 667).

Relating to linguistic equivalence, validity and reliability have an expanded meaning when testing in a cross-cultural context (Fouad, 1993). We must ensure that “The instrument [is] validly translated, the items must have conceptual and linguistic equivalence, and the test, as well as the items, must be free from bias” (Fouad, 1993, p. 8). We must be careful of our language.

If we follow these steps - our Code of Ethics; tests of reliability, validity and norms; four levels of equivalence - we should be serving our clients well, and being safe cross-cultural practitioners.


Carla

References:

Buros Center for Testing. (2010). Strong Interest Inventory. In. In R. Spies, J.F. Carlson, & K.F. Geisinger (Eds.) The Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 579-586). https://archive.org/details/eighteenthmental0000unse/page/584/mode/2up

CDANZ. (2016). Code of Ethics. Career Development Association of New Zealand. https://cdanz.org.nz/ModularPage?Action=View&ModularPage_id=26

CDANZ. (2018). Competency Framework. Career Development Association of New Zealand. https://cdanz.org.nz/ModularPage?Action=View&ModularPage_id=27

‌Donnay, D., Johnson C., Morris, M., Weber A., Thompson R., Schaubhut, N., & Thompson, R. (2013). Technical Brief for the Strong Interest Inventory® Assessment—Australia. https://ap.themyersbriggs.com/content/Research%20and%20White%20Papers/Strong/Strong_Australia_Tech_Brief.pdf 

Furbish, D. (2012). An Overview of New Zealand Career Development Services. Australian Journal of Career Development, 21(2), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621202100203

Fouad, N. A. (1993). Cross‐cultural vocational assessment. The Career Development Quarterly, 42(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1993.tb00240.x

NCDA. (2015). Code of Ethics. National Career Development Association.  https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/asset_manager/get_file/3395

Osborn, D. S., & Zunker, V. G. (2016). Using Assessment Results for Career Development (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Swanson J. L., & Fouad, N. A. (2020). Career Theory and Practice: Learning through case studies. Sage Publications, Inc.

Tao, C., Gupta, S., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2019). Interest Assessment in a Cross-Cultural Context. In J. A. Athanasou, & H. N. Perera (Eds.) International Handbook of Career Guidance (2nd ed., pp. 655-671). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25153-6

* Carla Knight has kindly prepared much of the material for this post

No comments :

Post a Comment

Thanks for your feedback. The elves will post it shortly.