The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle

of culture, both objective and subjective; (c) culture specific knowledge—knowing about a particular culture other than one's own; (d) culture general knowledge—knowledge about intercultural transitions and experiences, and how to manage them; and (e) culture learning—knowing how to learn about another culture (2006, pp. 40–1).

The interrelated concepts of intercultural sensitivity, intercultural development, and intercultural competence (Bennett, 1993; Hammer, 2008), separate from the five culture concepts mentioned above, are also central to the assessment of cultural knowledge. These terms describe, in various ways, what it ultimately means to be effective in communicating and interacting across cultures. For Bennett (1993), intercultural sensitivity “is the construction of reality as increasingly capable of accommodating cultural difference” (p. 24). Bennett's “developmental model of intercultural sensitivity” (DMIS) conceptualizes intercultural sensitivity as a developmental phenomenon consisting of six primary orientations toward cultural difference along a continuum. Intercultural development refers to the movement through this continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism and the increasing capacity to shift one's frame of cultural reference, cognitively and behaviorally.

      The DMIS has been highly influential and of great value to educators working in culturally diverse settings because it provides a way of (a) understanding the challenges experienced by persons living in those situations and contexts, and (b) designing programs that will support intercultural development that are relevant to the learners' existing level of competence.

The Nature of Instruments Assessing Cultural Knowledge

      Consistent with the multidimensional ways in which cultural knowledge has been conceptualized, many assessment instruments are used to measure various aspects of cultural knowledge. Fantini (2009) identifies 44 “external assessment instruments” that measure intercultural competence. Paige (2004) describes 35 “intercultural instruments” that are organized into nine culture categories. Five categories are particularly relevant: (a) intercultural development, (b) cultural identity, (c) cultural values, (d) cultural adjustment, and (e) culture learning (“learning styles” in Paige, 2004).

      Intercultural Development

      Bennett (1993) authored the “developmental model of intercultural sensitivity,” a seminal work on intercultural development. At the highest levels of development, Bennett theorizes that individuals have the capacity to shift cognitively and behaviorally to another culture's frames of reference, what Hammer (2008) refers to as “intercultural competence.” This concept of intercultural competence has received considerable attention in the literature, valuable works being those by Bennett (2015), Deardorff (2009), Moodian (2008), and Savicki (2008). The best known instrument for measuring intercultural development as represented by the DMIS is the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI; Hammer, 2008), which is described in greater detail below.

      Cultural Identity

Cultural identity refers to the sense a person has of belonging to and identifying with one or more cultural communities as well as to knowledge of one's own cultural values. Numerous instruments have been developed over the years to assess ethnic‐specific forms of identity, such as the Cross Racial Identity Scale (Cross & Vandiver, 2001) to measure Black American ethnic identity, and the Suinn‐Lew Asian Self‐Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn, Rickard‐Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987). More generalizable scales also have been developed that allow respondents to identify their primary culture and evaluate the strength of their participation in it. Examples include the Multi‐Index Ethnocultural Identity Scale (MEIS; Yamada, 1998), the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña‐Taylor, Yazedijian, & Bámaca‐Gómez, 2004), and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure‐Revised (MEIM‐R; Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Ong, 2007), which is described below.

      Cultural Values

      A central component of culture is the cultural value system, or ideas that are shared by members of a culture group regarding the desired patterns of behavior and belief in their community. Key authors in this area include Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Hofstede (2001), and Hall (1969). Well known intercultural instruments measuring cultural values include the Values Orientation Inventory (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) and the Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992).

      Cultural Adjustment

      Cultural adjustment is a core concept in the intercultural field (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). Having culture general knowledge about adjustment is seen as central to working effectively across cultures. Adjustment and adaptation are such significant aspects of the intercultural experience that a vast training literature has been developed around the issues of preparing and supporting persons experiencing cultural adjustment (Paige, 1993; Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2004). Well known instruments that measure cultural adjustment include the Cross‐Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Kelley & Meyers, 1999) and the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale‐Revised (SCAS‐R; Ward & Kennedy, 1999; Wilson, Ward, Fetvadjiev, & Bethel, 2017). The SCAS‐R is described below.

      Culture Learning

      A number of instruments have been developed to assess the skills, strategies, and capacities needed for learning about another culture. Ang et al. (2007) define cultural intelligence as “an individual's capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings” (p. 336). The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS; Earley & Ang, 2003) measures cultural intelligence. Kolb (1984) also presents a comprehensive theoretical treatment of culture learning, in which he identifies core learning styles. The Culture Learning Strategies Inventory (CLSI; Paige, Rong, Zheng, & Kappler, 2006) also falls into the culture learning category. The CQS (Earley & Ang, 2003) is described in the following section.

Selected Cultural Knowledge Assessment Instruments

In this section, four instruments are discussed in greater detail. These instruments were chosen because they each meet four critical criteria. These criteria include an explicit theoretical and conceptual foundation for the assessment; a clear definition of the aspect of cultural knowledge being assessed; evidence of reliability and validity; and generalizability of assessment results to a broad and culturally diverse audience. Generalizability is defined here as the use and application of the instrument for several cultural groups, language groups, or both. Table 1 shows a summary of each instrument and how or whether it meets each of these criteria.

      The Intercultural Development Inventory

Conceptual foundation. The IDI is a 50‐item measure of intercultural competence that is based on Bennett's (1993) developmental model. The IDI is well known and frequently used for assessing intercultural development and intercultural competence of individuals and groups.

       Cultural dimension(s) being measured: intercultural development. The IDI assesses one's orientation toward culturally different persons and groups. At higher levels of intercultural sensitivity or competence, this means possessing cultural knowledge sufficient for shifting cultural perspective and adapting behavior to cultural context. The IDI generates two main scores for intercultural competence: the “perceived orientation” score (where one places themselves on the DMIS continuum), the “developmental orientation” score (one's primary orientation toward cultural difference), as well as “trailing” or unresolved orientations and “leading” or aspirational orientations. It also produces scores of “orientation gap” and “cultural disengagement.”

       Reliability and validity. There is considerable empirical evidence on the reliability and validity of the IDI (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Hammer, 2011). These studies show that (a) the items possess strong internal reliability consistency, (b) the IDI is not subject