For the past few decades, acculturalization has emerged to be one of the most investigative topics in multicultural research, according to Kang (2006). As such, the increased interest of exploring the complicated process of acculturation process from the empirical viewpoint has paved way for the development of numerous measures closely related to two fundamental acculturation models: Unidimensional and Bidimensional. According to the United States 2010 Census Bureau, Asian American population represents 5% of the total American population. Consequently, based on the current growth rate, this percentage is expected to double to 9% by 2050 based on the 2010 U.S. Bureau population report (Kim & Omizo, 20010). The proliferating range of diversity parallels this growth rate within the Asian American group. For instance, the Asian American population comprises at least 24 unique ethnic groups like the Chines, Asian Indian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, among others. All the above ethnic groups are characterized by their own distinct languages, cultural aspects, and migration histories. Moreover, with the first group of Asian migrants having entered America in 1848, an extensive range of distribution in generation status is apparent today. University undergraduate students are the only population group featured in this research. Because of the Asian American population rapidly increasing its’ size as well as the unique attributes emerging from the various within-group variations, there is an increase need to comprehend the distinct characteristics of the Asian American population, its within-group divergences, and the Asian Americans' implications for multicultural practices.
The unidimensional model of acculturation is a zero-sum process. This dimension revolves around people’s adaption of a host-culture characteristics such as values and behaviors and concurrently discarding such attributes corresponding to their original culture. Numerous scholars have been critical of the above acculturation model, disagreeing that unidimensional acculturation measures are inadequate in their capacity to represent the authentic biculturation (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004). True biculturation is defined as the achievement of high observance to host and native cultures. For instance, a bicultural individual can be said to be one that has had significant socialization, and life experiences in more than two cultures and actively participates in the said cultures. The second model of acculturalization conceptualizes the above process bi-dimensionally, occurring on two distinct continua, with each representing a degree of adherence to a single specific culture. Measures based on bi-dimensional model examines acculturation to host and native cultures independently, that is, orthogonal, offering a metric that enables the identification of persons as being acculturated to a given culture, multiple cultures, or no culture.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In a review of relevant literature on acculturation, scholars established that the majority of the existing acculturation metrics were founded on the unidimensional model. The unidimensional model consists of people of one culture adapting to another culture. According to some scholars, immigrants have increasingly become disengaged with their culture so that they can become engaged with the American culture. Furthermore, many scholars consider the unidimensional measures are limited in showing the adaptation to both cultures, biculturation. Therefore, such measures limit the determination of one’s adaptation to the American culture and the Asian culture (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004). One of the most predominant scales used to measure acculturation is the Asian Self-Indentity Acculturation Scale, SL-ASIA. Nonetheless, the limitations existing in unidimensional models of acculturation and the inadequate availability of measure to examine Asian Americans' acculturation bi-dimensionally, there exist the need to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) which is mainly used in the bidimensional model.
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale
Acculturation is among the most valuable construct that can facilitate the understating of the Asian Americans. It also represents a critical within-group psychological variance. The development structure of the AAMAS focused on three fundamental principles. The first principle in the development process was that AAMAS ought to be orthogonal and differentiate between the various acculturation dimensions of the host culture and the Asian culture of origin. The above criterion was adopted with respect to the developing agreement with respect to the dominance of the orthogonal approach over the traditional unidimensional model. The second principle in the development of AAMAS was the inclusion of the Pan-ethnic Asian American Culture. This feature was incorporated in the development of AAMAS in line with the development in the sphere of Asian American studies. According to the pioneer of pan-ethnicity, Le Espiritu (1992, p.6), pan-ethnicity is developed as an outcome of complicated and constant interaction of both internal and external forces (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004). External forces are typically in the form of imposed classification by the more influential majority groups founded on the stereotypic ideas of professed homogeneity. Simply put, pan-ethnicity refers to the generalization of the cohesion among different ethnic subgroups as a result of classification. Nevertheless, once established, pan-ethnicity might be appropriated as a political resource serving on the basis of collective empowerment and mobilization. It is, therefore, within this setting that interplay forces shape into new and an emergent collective culture.
According to scholars, when diverse cultural groups associate themselves in disapproval to other groups, their departures quickly vanish. When group members from a specific culture derive traditions from the other, they tend to intermarry and develop a mutual lifestyle resulting in the emergence of a common culture. The AAMAS is therefore vital in gauging the degree to which there is a reliable underlying structure for a developing pan-ethnic culture specifically in the dimensions of dialect, food consumption, and cultural knowledge. The third guiding code for AAMAS development was its ease of use within multiple Asian ethnic groups. In the present day, the existing metrics of acculturation are ethnic-specific and thus regularly involve various adjustments sin studies of numerous Asian American groups or utilize a generic Asian American label that the respondents in a particular acculturation study might not conform to or rather identify with (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004). This is why most studies utilize the phrase “culture of origin” to enable the audience to insert their culture without having to apply the generic term or list each group personally. Equally the incorporation of the pan-ethnic dimension allows the extensive flexibility for people who are products of interethnic marriages besides a more inconsiderable approach to dimensions of cultural change process. Thus, AAMAS represents an exceptional blend of three vital defining features namely, orthogonality of cultural measures, integration of a pan-ethnic aspect, and the applicability across various ethnicities. The above elements were considered necessary in the acknowledgment of the diversity that exists in the Asian American population and the intricacy of the acculturation process.
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale Reliability and Validity
The AAMAS scale uses a 6-point Likert scale ranging from not very much to very much (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004). The Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) represents a 15-item measure of the Asian American involvement in the behavioral norms of an individual’s Asian culture of origin, European-American culture, and other Asian cultures. The measure comprises of three critical subscales namely: Culture of Origin (AAMAS-CO), European-American Culture (AAMAS-EA), and other Asian American Culture (AAMAS-AA). For each of the above items, respondents in an acculturation scale designate on a 6-point range the degree of their engagement in a specific cultural norm with regards to the 3 cultural groups' responses. The 6-point scale is represented as 1=not very well, gradually increasing to 6 which means very well (Kim & Omizo, 2010). In return, the responses for each of the cultural groups are summed to estimate each subscale score. Most of the items in the measurement scale are based on behavioral relations in cultural values, having been extensively adapted from the SL-ASIA scale. The sample items in the AAMAS scale comprise of questions revolving around individuals’ eloquence to their language, their food consumption of a particular culture, their degree of practicing the traditions of a given culture as well as their level of socialization with other people (Kang, 2006). Most of the items in the AAMAS scale describe activities like dialect use, traditions, food consumed, and socialization with other individuals. These activities are used for each subscale based on the host culture. Most scholars report moderately low correlation between each subscale with coefficients of 0.37, 0.18, and -0.25 within the Asian value Scale, a degree of devotion to the Asian cultural value, the AAMAS-CO, AAMAS-EA, and AAMAS-AA correspondingly according to Chung, Kim, and Abreu (2004).
Accordingly, the study by Chung, Kim, an Abreu (2004) reported coefficient alphas within the range of 0.76 to o.91 in terms of the scales reliability for 3 subscales across three different studies. Correspondingly, the above scholars reported 2-week tests and retests coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.89 which means there is a reliable consistency. For the different subscales. In its validity, Chung, Kim, and Abreu (2004) indicated evidence of factorial cogency through exploratory and conformity aspect analyses. Additionally, the authors similarly reported indication of concurrent, criterion-associated, and discriminant validity of the AAMAS’s subscales values based on the comparisons with the various measures of acculturation, generational status, cultural identity, intergenerational conflict as well as self-esteem.
According to o tne study, the majority of times, information accrued in social sciences research, medicine, marketing, and business relative to individuals' emotions, attitudes, opinions, personalities, as well as the description of individual environment mainly entails the application of the Likert-type scales (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). As researchers endeavor to quantify particular constructs that are not directly quantifiable, they regularly utilize multiple-item scales besides summated ratings to measure the given constructs of interest. The use of Likert scale in AAMAS makes the measurement scale valid and reliable to use in measuring the degree of individuals' acculturation in their host culture. Participants are able to give their honest feedback on their true feelings of their host culture and the American culture. The number of scale points used is able to process the important information when trying to measure acculturation. Too few scale points would not provide an accurate response to research. According to research, some researchers assert that the attributes that make a scale a summated rating scale include the presence of multiple items in the scale (Gliem &Gliem, 2003). Secondly, each individual item in the scale ought to measure something with a primary, quantifiable measurement range. This means that the scale measures the property of something that varies quantitively. The third feature is that each item in a summated rating scale ought to have no right answer making the summated rating scale diverse from the multiple-choice test. Finally, each item in the scale should be a statement with respondents expected to give a rating of each statement.
The application of a multi-item measurement scale in AAMAS is critical because individual items are associated with significant random measurement errors hence are unreliable. Additionally, an individual item can only classify individuals into a moderately small number of groups. This implies that a single item cannot distinguish among fine extends of an attribute hence lack precision. Single items also lack scope. A single item measure cannot wholly represent a complicated theoretical concept or any explicit attribute. Moreover, single-item measures are normally less valid, less reliable, and less accurate in comparison to the multi-item equivalent. The AAMAS incorporation of the Likert five scale, therefore, implies that a researcher can attain adequate information to approximate the measurement properties of individuals' acculturation to a particular culture. Most importantly, the single measure of a given variable can make a researcher supremely uninformed of the possibility of measurement or error whereas his or her inferences remain invalid. Given the advantages of applying Likert-type scales with their related multi-item scales as well as summated rating scales, it is clear that this analysis by Gliem A, and Gliem R (2003) affirms AAMAS validity and reliability.
The results of three distinct and separate studies conducted by Ching, Kim, and Abreu (2004) offer substantial evidence of the instrument’s validity and reliability. The first study to examine the reliability, validity and the factor structure of AAMAS featured a total of 342 Asian American undergraduates (223 women and 118 men) admitted to a West Coast University. The ethnicity of the study participants in terms of ethnic was 28% Chinese, 27% Korean, 14% Japanese, 12% Filipino, 11% Vietnamese with the remaining participants representing parties from other Asian American categories inclusive of Singaporeans, Indonesians, Cambodians, Thais, Lao and Asian biracial. The second study featured 138 Asian American undergraduates (97 women and 41 men) from a West Coast University. The study population int terms of ethnicity represented 30% Chinese, 12% Multiethnic Asians, 23% Koreans, 9% Filipino, 9% Japanese, 9% Asian Indian, 4% Taiwanese, and 4% Vietnamese. The third study represented 44 participants (19 women and 25 men) Korean Americans living in Southern California. The three studies conducted by Ching, Kim, and Abreu (2004) provide adequate and robust evidence of AAMAS validity and reliability based on the statistical analysis of the participant's responses to the questionnaires presented.
Chung, Kim, and Abreu (2004) indicate that the internal consistency alongside the tests-retests coefficients for the 3 subscales; AAMAS-CO, AAMAS-AA, and AAMAS-EA, were within the approved reliability range. The alpha coefficients were all consistent through the four discrete administrations. They ranged from 0.87 to .91 for AAMAS-CO, 0.76 to 0.81 for AAMAS-EA and 0.78 to 0.83 for AAMAS-AA. Of the three scales examined, AAMAS-CO was the most reliable one. In concurrent validity, a strong inverse correlation was exhibited between AAMAS-CO and the uni-dimensional SL-ASIA. A substantial positive correlation on the AVS score that is higher scores in SL-ASIA depicts higher acculturation to the Western culture. Similarly, higher scores in AVS denoted higher devotion to the Asian culture. AAMAS-EA inverse correlation pattern was attained. The results indicated that the AAMAS-EA was positively correlated to SL-ASIA and negatively associated with AVS. Further, the correlation between the bi-dimensional CIS offered a more compelling evidence of parallel validity of the AAMAS and the idea that acculturation to host culture and the Asian culture of origin were not unified processes. The integrated evidence of the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses along the alpha coefficients implies that the four-factor arrangement within each AAMAS cultural dimension is valid and reliable. That the AAMAS has an apparent four-aspect structure grouped around language, cultural identity, cultural knowledge, and food consumption as indicated in the three studies by Chung, Kim, and Abreu (2004) exhibits the strength of the Asian American Multidimensional Scale.
Delimitations Made
Being among the Asian students studying in America, there was a need to limit this study to international students’ acculturation to comprehend the degree to which international students get accultured to the American culture. Initially, it was difficult for me to adjust to the American culture whereas I was not only there to serve my academic purposes but to subsequently reside in the country. The AAMAS is therefore considered a unique and critical Asian American acculturation scale that provides insights on the degree of Asian students' adaption to the American culture. Most students, especially from the Asian origin, encounter difficulties in their acculturation process, especially in instances where their learning institutions do not have support initiatives that help international students undergo a successful transition from their Asian to the American culture. According to a report by the Institute of International Education, international students enrolled in United States institutions of higher learning were estimated to be 819,644 between 2012 and 2013 with the number rising annually (Bai, 2016). In the present day, the U.S. has hosted more than 50% of the total global population of international students becoming the primary destination for international students. For such, studying in a foreign nation such as the U.S. imposes numerous challenges on international students such as communication difficulties, interpersonal and intrapersonal difficulties, dietary among others. This suggests that international students are the most affected groups of people in their acculturation process thus the need to understand their acculturation process to facilitate the mitigation of acculturation stress among them. Asian American students commonly report numerous concerns associated with social connectedness, social interaction, social support, and other issues linked to cultural shock. The interests above represent the acculturation concerns that ought to be addressed through the use of AAMAS scale.
AAMAS Assessment Instruments
Asian Value Scale (avs)
The AVS is an assessment instrument developed to assess an individual’s adherence to the Asian cultural values. Asian cultural values salient to the Asian Americans include conformity to norms, collectivism, emotional restrains, among others. Theories on Asian cultural values indicate that the first-generation of Asian American adheres to the cited values more profoundly compared to the current generation of Asian Americans (Kim & Hong, 2004). The AVS is an indispensable assessment instrument applied in AAMAS. The tool is utilized in assessing the adherence levels of Asian Americans to different dimensions of Asian cultural values in comprehending their acculturation.
Cultural Identification Scale
The orthogonal cultural identification scale is utilized in AAMAS to assess the identification of an individual to one or more cultures.
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale
The Rosenberg self-esteem scale assessment instrument was developed by Morris Rosenberg, a sociologist. It is a self-esteem assessment tool extensively utilized in social-science research. The assessment tool employs a scale of 0-30. A score of less than 15 is regarded a challenging low self-esteem issue (Tomas et al. 2015). The assessment tool is designed similar to social survey questionnaire hence utilized in AAMAS.
Stuck on your essay?
