Structure and Measurement of Acculturation/Enculturation for Asian Americans Using the ARSMA-II (original) (raw)
Related papers
Validating the Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory with Asian Americans
Psychological Assessment, 2011
An emerging body of empirical research highlights the impact of acculturative stress in the lives of culturally diverse populations. Therefore, to facilitate future research in this area, we conducted 3 studies to examine the psychometric properties of the Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI; ) and its 5 subscales in a total sample of 793 self-identified Asian American participants. The reliability and validity of RASI scores and the hypothesized 1-factor higher order model (with 1st-order factors Language Skills, Work Challenges, Intercultural Relations, Discrimination, and Cultural Isolation) of the RASI were examined in Study 1. The RASI higher order structure and score validity and reliability were examined across different generational groups in Study 2. The stability of RASI scores over a 3-week period was examined in Study 3. Overall, findings from these studies support the hypothesized structure of the RASI and indicate that this brief instrument provides reliable and valid acculturative stress scores. In addition, results suggest that RASI items are interpreted in an equivalent manner across different generations of Asian American individuals. Implications for research and assessment are discussed.
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 2011
We examined health status and access to care among Asian Americans by the following acculturation indicators: nativity, percent lifetime in the US, self-rated English proficiency, and interview language, to assess whether any measure better distinguishes acculturation. Data from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey were used to study the sample of 4,170 US-born and foreign-born Asians by acculturation indicators. We performed t-tests to compare differences in demographics, health status and behaviors, and access to care between the foreign-born and US-born Asians, and between various classifications within foreign-born and the US-born Asian group. Our results showed that foreign-born Asians who interviewed in English more closely resembled US-born Asians than foreign-born Asians who interviewed in languages other than English. Compared to interview language, dichotomizing the sample by other acculturation indicators showed smaller differences between the divided groups. Interview language may serve as a better measure for acculturation especially among foreign-born populations with a high proportion of limited English proficiency. In immigrant public health research studies, interview language may be used as an important covariate for health disparities.