employed to assess one’s overall evaluation of self-worth (e.g., “I have a number of good qualities”). It consists of 10 items with a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The item “I wish I could have more respect for myself” had a negative item-total correlation, and had been found to be an ambiguous item among Chinese samples in previous studies (Cheng & Hamid, 1995). Thus, we dropped this item and obtained an α of .90. Self-efficacy. The 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was used to assess one’s belief in obtaining desired outcomes (e.g., “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”). The responses were anchored on 4-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true) (α = .89). Cross-cultural efficacy. Efficacy in cross-cultural interactions and social functions was assessed by Li and Gasser’s (2005) revised 17-item scale. Originally developed by Fan and Mak (1998), cross-cultural efficacy was measured by four subscales, namely social difficulties, social confidence, sharing interests with others, and willingness to take initiatives to establish friendships (e.g., “Handle myself well in social gatherings”), but was used as a single factor and modified to capture cross-cultural interactions (Li & Gasser, 2005). Responses were anchored on 4-point scales ranging from 1 (not confident) to 4 (very confident) (α = .93). Results and Discussion First, we validated the factor structure of global orientations using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 13 items measuring multicultural acquisition and 12 items measuring ethnic protection were randomly grouped into three parcels, with four to five items in each parcel (see Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002 on using item parceling in structural equation modeling). The two-factor model fit the data moderately well, χ2 (8) = 13.14, p = .11, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .02.
employed to assess one’s overall evaluation of self-worth (e.g., “I have a number of good qualities”). It consists of 10 items with a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The item “I wish I could have more respect for myself” had a negative item-total correlation, and had been found to be an ambiguous item among Chinese samples in previous studies (Cheng & Hamid, 1995). Thus, we dropped this item and obtained an α of .90. Self-efficacy. The 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was used to assess one’s belief in obtaining desired outcomes (e.g., “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”). The responses were anchored on 4-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true) (α = .89). Cross-cultural efficacy. Efficacy in cross-cultural interactions and social functions was assessed by Li and Gasser’s (2005) revised 17-item scale. Originally developed by Fan and Mak (1998), cross-cultural efficacy was measured by four subscales, namely social difficulties, social confidence, sharing interests with others, and willingness to take initiatives to establish friendships (e.g., “Handle myself well in social gatherings”), but was used as a single factor and modified to capture cross-cultural interactions (Li & Gasser, 2005). Responses were anchored on 4-point scales ranging from 1 (not confident) to 4 (very confident) (α = .93). Results and Discussion First, we validated the factor structure of global orientations using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 13 items measuring multicultural acquisition and 12 items measuring ethnic protection were randomly grouped into three parcels, with four to five items in each parcel (see Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002 on using item parceling in structural equation modeling). The two-factor model fit the data moderately well, χ2 (8) = 13.14, p = .11, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .02.
global%20orientation_2nd%20revision_6-16-15.docx