跨文化適應力評估量表中文化應用之分析

Abstract

臺灣對國際人才的跨文化適應能力相關評估工具缺乏，形成實務與研究的限制。因此本研究援引Kelley與Meyers所發展的跨文化適應力評估量表(Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory, CCAI)，進行中文化的編譯工作，透過文獻探討、返譯法及專家意見等方式提高翻譯品質。經立意取樣得372份臺灣地區樣本進行信效度考驗。中文版量表(α=.91)和原文版量表(α=.90)的信度係數值相近；而驗證性因素分析結果達到區辨效度標準，但收斂效度可再提升，模式適配度為可接受（CMIN/DF <3.00; RMSEA < .1; SRMR < .08達到標準；但CMIN p<.05及CFI<.95則否），與其他以美國樣本所進行之研究結果類似。推論不同語言文化，非造成模式適配指標不佳之主因。故建議發展跨文化適應力中文量表時應持續檢核與改善翻譯過程，而原始量表的構面亦需深入探討與調整。

Because of the cross-cultural adaptability measurement tools are insufficient in Taiwan that leads to an implement limitation of practice and research. Faced with such a problem, this study used the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), originally developed by Kelly and Meyers in the US, as a measure tool and translated it into Chinese version. To increase the quality of translation, forward-translation, back-translation, and expert review were utilized. Data from 372 Taiwanese samples was selected by purposeful sampling to test the reliability and validity of CCAI Chinese version. The result showed that the reliability coefficient of both Chinese version (α= .91) and English version (α= .90) are similar. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) shows that the overall discriminate validity reached standard but the convergent validity still needs further improvement. The model fit reaches the acceptable level in some aspects (CMIN/DF < 3.00; RMSEA < .1; SRMR < .08), but other aspects failed to reach the criteria (CMIN < .05; CFI < .95). As such results are same as the findings from other studies based on U.S. samples, different language and culture may not be the only factor which cause such unsatisfied model fit. Base on the results this study suggests to further check and improve the translation process of CCAI into Chinese version; in addition, the dimensions of original CCAI English version should also be further reviewed and adjusted.