The Psychometric Properties of the Orthogonal Cultural Identification Scale in Asian Americans. (Articles)

Article excerpt

Reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) and validity (construct and factorial) of the Orthogonal Cultural Identification Scale (OCIS; E. R. Oetting & F. Beauvais, 1990-1991) were evaluated in a sample of Asian American university students. Ethnic identification, measured using the OCIS, and acculturation, measured using the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (R. M. Suinn, K. Rickard-Fugueroa, S. Lew, & R Vigil, 1987), are hypothesized to measure related but separate constructs.

Analisis de fiabilidad (consistencia interna y estabilidad temporal), y de validez (conceptual y factorial) de la Escala Ortagonal de Identificacion Cultural (OCIS; E. R. Oetting & F. Beauvais, 1990-1991) fueron evaluados en un grupo de estudiantes universitarios Asiaticos Americanos. La identificacion etnica fue medida usando la OCIS, y la aculturacion fue medida usando la Escala de Identidad de Ser y Aculturacion Asiatica de Suinn-Lew (R. M. Suinn, K. Rickard-Figueroa, S. Lew, & P. Vigil, 1987). Se presenta la hipotesis que la identificacion etnica y la aculturacion miden conceptos separados que estan relacionados.


Research with Asian Americans has demonstrated that acculturation, the process by which an individual accommodates two or more cultures (Oetting & Beauvais, 1990-1991), is an important variable for counseling. Level of acculturation has been associated with various mental health variables including stress, attitudes toward and use of counseling services, vocational behavior, and substance use (Kitano & Maki, 1996; Suinn, Khoo, & Ahuna, 1995). To date, the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn, Rickard-Fugueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987) has been the most extensively used instrument to assess acculturation in Asian Americans (Ponterotto, Baluch, & Carielli, 1998). The SL-ASIA was modeled after the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980) and dichotomizes Asian and Anglo identification along a continuum between highly identified Asian and highly identified Anglo, with bicultural functioning represented in the center. Hence, Asian identification is dependent upon Anglo identification and vice versa. A limitation of this instrument is that it does not account for respondents who are either highly identified or not identified with both Asian culture and Anglo culture. To address this limitation, Suinn et al. (1995) added four orthogonal questions to the SL-ASIA. As yet, however, there are no psychometric data available for these additional items. Moreover, consistent with the conceptualization of the SL-ASIA, only Asian identification and Anglo identification are assessed.

Acculturation and ethnic identification, as noted by several researchers, have been used interchangeably in the literature (Leong & Chou, 1994; Phinney, 1990; Sue, Mak, & Sue, 1998). Theorists, however, have recently clarified and differentiated these constructs and concluded that they are related yet distinct (Atkinson & Thompson, 1992; Kitano & Maki, 1996; Leong & Chou, 1994; Oetting & Beauvais, 1990-1991; Phinney, 1990; Sue et al., 1998). Whereas acculturation has focused on the relationship between ethnic individuals and the dominant society, ethnic identity has emphasized how closely an individual feels invested in a specific ethnic group (Oetting & Beauvais, 1990-1991). Moreover, the term ethnic group, as used here, refers to broad groupings of Americans on the basis of both race and culture (Phinney, 1996). Compared with research on acculturation, less research (Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990) has been conducted on Asian Americans measuring ethnic identification using empirically validated instruments. In addition, despite theoretical discussions, relatively little research (Cuellar, Nyberg, Maldonado, & Roberts, 1997) has been conducted measuring both acculturation and ethnic identification within ethnic groups. …