Psychological Assessment 2015, Vol. 27, No. 1, 42-53

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1040-3590/15/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/pas0000027

The Cross-Cultural Loss Scale: Development and Psychometric Evaluation Kenneth T. Wang

Meifen Wei

University of Missouri

Iowa State University

Ran Zhao, Chih-Chun Chuang, and Feihan Li University of Missouri The Cross-Cultural Loss Scale (CCLS), a measure of loss associated with crossing national boundaries, was developed across 2 samples of international students. With Sample 1 (N = 262), exploratory factor analyses were used to select the 14 CCLS items and to determine 3 factors: Belonging-Competency (a = .87), National Privileges (a = .68), and Access to Home Familiarity (a = .72). With Sample 2, confirmatory factor analyses (N = 256) cross-validated the 3-factor oblique model as well as a bifactor model. Cronbach alphas of CCLS subscale scores in Sample 2 ranged from .73 to .87. The validity of the CCLS scores was supported by its associations with related variables in the expected directions. Perceived cross-cultural losses were positively associated with negative affect, migration grief and loss, and discrimination and were negatively associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, general selfefficacy, and social connection with mainstream society. Moreover, the CCLS total and 2 subscale scores added significant incremental variance in predicting subjective well-being over and above related constructs. The results indicated measurement invariance and validity equivalency for the CCLS scores between men and women. The overall results from these 2 samples support CCLS as a psychometrically strong measure. Keywords: scale development, cross-cultural loss, international students, reliability, validity

Relocating to a different country is a significant life event that involves changes and brings up a sense of having lost what one had (Arredondo-Dowd, 1981). The losses experienced by sojourners are pervasive and have been noted by scholars and researchers as the following: access to familiar aspects of their home country (e.g., people, places, food, native music, and aspects of past life; Aroian, Norris, Tran, & Schappler-Morris, 1998), social status (Casado & Leung, 2002), identity (Casado & Leung, 2002), fa­ miliar environments (Tartakovsky, 2008), social network (Casado, Hong, & Harrington, 2010), language (Casado et al., 2010), and other skills (Ding et al., 2011). Experiencing these cross-cultural losses often have significant impact on one’s psychological state (Casado & Leung, 2002) and should be recognized and understood

to better understand the psychological distress associated with these losses. A few scholars have conceptually linked cross-national experi­ ences with loss. Eisenbruch (1984) first introduced the term “cul­ tural bereavement” (p. 283) to incorporate the subjective experi­ ence of loss and being uprooted with Cambodian refugees. He further stressed the importance of conceptualizing the experiences of these refugees not simply as a result of stress or psychiatric disorder but to use the framework of loss to understand their sufferings. Drawing on Klein’s (1946) and Winnicott’s (1958) theories of the ego in early infancy, Thomas (1995) used the term “bereavement and rebirth” (p. 344) to conceptualize the experi­ ences of those crossing national borders; she paralleled this expe­ rience of losing one’s home culture and motherland to the con­ fused and powerless state of early childhood. The nature of the bereavement is described as a loss of roots, which includes the geography, support, people, cognitive world, and status that indi­ viduals had back in their home country. Thomas further depicted the experiences of starting a life in a new country as filled with anxiety, confusion, powerlessness, and childishness, which stems from the need to build life again from the beginning due to the losses. In addition, Rakhsha (2002) categorized the losses into tangible and intangible ones when illustrating the experiences of international students. Empirical studies that examined cross-cultural loss are scarce, and a possible reason that cross-cultural loss has not received much attention may be due to its intangible and often unrecognized nature (Casado & Leung, 2002; Lee, 2010; Rakhsha, 2002). By not recognizing the losses, the challenges associated with crossing national borders can be misperceived as the sojourner’s deficits.

This article was published Online First September 15, 2014. Kenneth T. Wang, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri; Meifen Wei, Department of Psychol­ ogy, Iowa State University; Ran Zhao, Chih-Chun Chuang, and Feihan Li, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, Univer­ sity of Missouri. Kenneth T. Wang is now at Department of Clinical Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary. This study was presented at the Counseling Psychology Conference, Atlanta, GA, March 2012. We thank Puncky P. Heppner for providing feedback on the initial items of this scale. We also thank Jeffrey G. Yeung for editorial feedback with this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kenneth T. Wang, Department of Clinical Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 180 N. Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101. E-mail: [email protected]

42

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE

Being aware of and viewing one’s acculturative challenges as a developmental learning curve rather than a skill or personality deficit can reduce discouragement (Siegel, 1991) and prevent added internal pressure from having high and unrealistic expecta­ tions for oneself. Recognizing that one needs to relearn new knowledge and skills (due to changes associated with living in a different country) is different from feeling that one does not have adequate knowledge and skills (a deficit perspective). There has been a call for using a more positive lens that emphasizes growth as opposed to deficits with international students, which is a large and increasing group that crosses national borders every year (Siegel, 1991). This notion of cross-cultural loss seems to be relevant; however, it is rarely addressed in the international student literature. The concept of loss is particularly important for international student populations. There was a record high of 764,495 interna­ tional students studying in the United States during the 2011-2012 academic year, which was 31% more than a decade ago (Institute of International Education, 2012). There has been cumulative empirical evidence of the challenges international students en­ counter and the acculturative stress they experience (see Zhang & Goodson, 2011 for a review). However, the roles of these losses in the cross-national adjustment process are lacking in the interna­ tional student empirical literature. Instead, the constructs of accul­ turation and culture shock have been the focus of study with those crossing national borders (Zhang & Goodson, 2011). A review of empirical literature revealed that most measures assessing cross-cultural distress and psychological processes are based on theories of acculturation, and focus on immigrant popu­ lations. Among the acculturation-related scales, there was only one specifically developed for international students—Acculturative Stress Scale for International Students (ASSIS; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994)—and research showed that one’s level of accultura­ tive stress was positively associated with depressive mood (Wang et al., 2012). In sum, acculturation has received more attention in the literature of immigrants and international students. However, losses that sojourners experience are likely antecedents to the acculturative stress that they experience. Therefore, there have been a few attempts made to understand the psychological process of acculturation from the theoretical perspective of grief and loss. There are two scales that measure loss related to living in a different country and a few other cross-culture measures that consist of a loss subscale. The Migratory Grief and Loss Ques­ tionnaire (MGLQ; Casado, 2000) was established based on immi­ gration grief among Chinese immigrants. The MGLQ consists of two factors— Attachment to Homeland and Identity Discontinui­ ty—which both had strong concurrent validity with depressive symptoms (Casado et al., 2010). The Multidimensional Loss Scale (MLS; Vromans, Schweitzer, & Brough, 2012) was recently de­ veloped to assess the cross-cultural losses experienced by refugees. The MLS assesses experience of loss events as well as the distress level associated with the losses. The scale consists of five factors: Loss o f Symbolic Self, Loss o f Interdependence, Loss o f Home, Interpersonal Loss, and Loss o f Intrapersonal Integrity. The MLS loss distress level was found to have significant positive associa­ tions with measures of interpersonal grief, trauma symptoms, and somatization indicators (Vromans et al., 2012). In addition, lossrelated subscales were found in other measures, such as the De­ mands of Immigration Scale (Aroian et al., 1998) and the Low­

43

lands Acculturation Scale (Mooren, Knipscheer, Kamperman, Kleber, & Komproe, 2001). These cultural loss-related scales point to the importance of grief and the sense of loss among immigrants and refugees; however, there is currently no well-established in­ strument available to measure the concept of cross-cultural loss that can be used with various types of people living in another country. Although the MGLQ and MLS are both loss measures with adequate psychometric properties, a limitation is these two scales were developed and tailored specifically for immigrants and refugees, respectively. Several of their items do not apply to other sojourners, such as international students. For example, the higher rate of returning back to one’s home country for international students distinguishes the nature of the losses. In other words, the losses may be temporary; thus, the grieving process may be dif­ ferent. In addition, compared to refugees, international students’ cross-national journeys are voluntary, and they have more freedom to visit their home country. To illustrate, some items on the MLS may not apply to international students, such as “death of a family member” and “lost some of your wealth or inheritance.” Also, the MGLQ has a strong focus on grief that applies more to permanent losses, which may or may not be as relevant for international students who live temporarily in a different county. Given the emerging evidence for acculturative stress and loss associated with international students, international workers, im­ migrants, and refugees, developing a reliable and valid instrument that measures cross-cultural loss would likely advance the litera­ ture in this area. In addition, the rapidly increasing global interac­ tions have made crossing national borders and living in a different country a more common experience for people around the world. Thus, the concept of cross-cultural loss should receive more at­ tention. The lack of studies on cross-cultural loss with international students is mainly due to the absence of an appropriate measure of this construct for this population. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to develop a cross-cultural loss scale that addresses the common losses applicable for most sojourner and immigrant groups, including international students. Four major types of cross-cultural loss emerged from our review of the literature and informal interviews with sojourners. First, accessibility to aspects of the home country, including people, places, food, music, climate, and network have been addressed by several scholars (e.g., Aroian et al., 1998; Rakhsha, 2002; Vro­ mans et al., 2012) and have been contrasted with other intangible losses experienced in the host country. Second, as for intangible losses, Rakhsha (2002) highlighted three types: effortless sense of belonging, relevancy of knowledge, and self-efficacy. We com­ bined these into two main categories— social and competency— which were also addressed by other scholars (e.g., Casado et al., 2010; Ding et al., 2011; Vinokurov, Trickett, & Birman, 2002; Vromans et al., 2012). Finally, we added a loss specifically related to rights and privileges that come with having citizenship of the residing country. This loss may be most applicable for interna­ tional students, recent immigrants and refugees as well as tempo­ rary foreigners, who are only in the new country for a limited period of time. Given the infancy of the cross-cultural loss con­ cept, we describe in more detail about the additional interviews and discussions involved in developing items for each type of loss in the methods section.

WANG, WEI, ZHAO, CHUANG, AND LI

44

The Current Study The purpose of this study is to establish the factor structure, reliability, and validity of a cross-cultural loss measure across two international student samples. The first sample was mainly used to determine scale items through exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and to examine the scale’s construct validity. The second sample was used to cross-validate the factor structure through confirma­ tory factor analyses and to provide additional evidence of construct validity. We recruited international students from various countries studying in different locations across the United States. The reason for using a broader sample (all international students from a variety of countries) as opposed to a more homogenous group (international students from one country/region) was to enhance to applicability for future use of this scale. Our samples also included diversity around language proficiency and length of time in the United States, which are variables associated with crossing na­ tional borders and adjusting in new country (Zhang & Goodson, 2011), which may also relate to experiencing different types of loss. To examine the construct validity of this scale, we examined its relationship with other theoretically related constructs. Theoreti­ cally, losses that individuals experience can lead to psychological distress and poor psychological well-being (Casado & Leung, 2002). Thus, life satisfaction, as well as positive and negative affect, was included as a psychological indicator. We anticipated that cross-cultural loss would be positively associated with nega­ tive affect and negatively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction. Migration grief and loss is a related construct, which we anticipated having a positive correlation with cross-cultural loss. Discrimination is a common negative experience for those living in different country (Sandhu, & Asrabadi, 1994; Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012), which we also anticipated being positively linked with the sense of loss for international students. In addition, social connectedness and self-efficacy are variables conceptually related to social and competency aspects of losses (Rakhsha, 2002), which we expected to have negative correlations with cross-cultural loss. We also examined the incremental validity of the cross-cultural loss total-score and subscales above and beyond related constructs mentioned above in predicting subjective well­ being. In addition to the variables used to examine construct validity, English proficiency and length of time in the United States, which are highly relevant to international students (Zhang & Goodson, 2011), were also included as study variables to examine their relationships with cross-cultural loss.

Method Participants Sample 1. The first sample was used for exploratory factor analysis to determine scale items and examine initial reliability and validity. Participants were 262 international students (147 women, 114 men, 1 transgender) studying in the United States. Mean age was 26.9 years (SD = 5.9). The participants came from 64 coun­ tries, with India (23%), China (13%), and South Korea (5%) being the top three countries of origin. The majority were graduate students (73%). Participants were studying at various states across the United States, with Illinois (20%), Indiana (13%), Kansas

(12%), and Missouri (12%) being the top four locations. Engineer­ ing (16%), Business and Management (15%), Physical and Life Science (14%), and Social Sciences (11%) were among the top majors. Participants had lived in the United States for an average of 36.2 months (SD = 32.2). Sample 2. The second sample was mainly used for confirma­ tory factor analysis to cross-validate the factor structure and ex­ amine additional reliability and validity. Participants were 256 international students (144 women, 112 men) studying in the United States. Their mean age was 27.0 years (SD = 5.6). The participants came from 67 different countries, with China (16%), India (15%), and Brazil (5%) being the top three countries of origin. The majority were graduate students (72%). Participants were studying at various states across the United States, with Illinois (18%), Missouri (14%), Tennessee (12%), and Kansas (12%) being the top four locations. Business and Management (18%), Social Sciences (13%), Physical and Life Science (12%), and Engineering (11%) were among the most studied fields. Par­ ticipants had been living in the United States for an average of 31.8 months (SD = 33.2).

Item Development Initial development. A team of five advanced graduate stu­ dents and one professor in counseling psychology with experience, knowledge, and expertise in cross-cultural psychology generated initial scale items based on research of grief and loss associated with international students, immigrants, and people with crosscultural experiences. The team generated a total of 126 items based on these seven domains: communication (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), tangible access (Gilbert, 2008; Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2008), belongingness, self-efficacy, relevant knowledge, national privilege, and national identity (e.g., Eisenbruch, 1990; Gilbert, 2008). Sample items include, “I find it difficult to articulate my thoughts” (communication), “I miss my family” (tangible access), “I feel isolated” (belongingness), “I struggle to perform well” (self-efficacy), “I don’t know how the system works here” (relevant knowledge), “I face extra challenges in being a foreigner” (national privileges), and “I have lost a sense of cultural identity” (national identity). These items were then reviewed to ensure that they were clear, concise, readable, and distinct and reflect the scale’s purpose as suggested by Worthing­ ton and Whittaker (2006). After the items were reviewed and those that were redundant, unclear, or irrelevant were removed, 60 items were left in the initial item pool. Existing scale review and individual interviews. Items in established measures related to acculturative stress, cultural adap­ tion, and general loss were then reviewed to include additional items related to each domain (e.g., Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994; Vinokurov et ah, 2002). In addition, individual interviews were conducted with seven interviewees (three women, four men; orig­ inally from China, Taiwan, South Korea, Ghana, and Kenya) who were studying or working in the United States and seven students from the United States (six women, one man) who previously had short-term or long-term study or work abroad experiences (coun­ tries they stayed were Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Guinea, Japan, and China). We asked them about the losses they experi­ enced and things they missed during their stay in another country. The research team went through a few rounds of classifying and

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE

revising items for clarity, which resulted in a total of 58 items after adding a few new items and removing items that were less rele­ vant. Expert review. To evaluate the items’ quality and represen­ tativeness of the construct, three graduate students and two pro­ fessional experts in cross-cultural psychology and scale construc­ tion were asked to categorize the items into domains and to determine the extent to which the pool of 58 items (a) reflected the definition of cross-cultural loss (relevancy) and (b) were clearly and simply written (clarity). The experts were also instructed to freely edit any of the items, suggest new items, and provide any additional feedback to improve the scale. During the first round of expert feedback, we received input from one expert about the overlap between domains and unclear items. Based on the expert’s feedback, we reexamined and modified items and also reduced the number of domains from seven to four, which are belongingness, competency, access to home familiarity, and national privileges. Belongingness was defined as the sense o f belongingness and social connection in host country, Competency was defined as communication skills, relevant knowledge, and sense o f efficacy in the host country, Access to Home Familiarity was defined as the accessibility o f aspects (e.g., environment, people, things, and culture) o f home country; and National Privileges was defined as privileges associated with being a national citizen or permanent resident within a country. To aid in assessing content validity, two experts did a second round of review to examine the remaining items for clarity and domain appropriateness. They also classified the items into the four domains. The research team checked the items and made revisions accordingly. The goal was to have items that distinctively assessed one of the four domains and revise or remove items that were unclear. The final item pool for the scale consisted of 29 items. Initial Cross-Cultural Loss Scale (CCLS-Initial). The CCLS-Initial included 29 items that measured the losses that people experience during their cross-national journey. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The instructions to participants were People experience losses when they are in a different country, such as access to food from back home, the ability to handle daily tasks in the new environment, and a sense of connectedness with others. Please rate the level each item below describes your situation based on comparing your experiences back in your home country with now living in this new country.

Other Measures Used to Examine Validity Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), a five-item measure, was used to assess the general level of life satisfaction. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach alpha was .86 in a sample of international students (Wei, Wang, & Ku, 2012). The SWLS has been translated into many languages and widely used with adequate construct validity across nations (e.g., Abdallah, 1998). Cronbach alphas for SWLS scores in this study were .88 (Sample 1) and .84 (Sample 2). Positive and negative affect. The Positive and Negative Af­ fect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess positive affect (PA; enthusiastic, interested, deter­

45

mined, excited, inspired, alert, active, strong, proud, and attentive) and negative affect (NA; scared, afraid, upset, distressed, jittery, nervous, ashamed, guilty, irritable, and hostile). Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slight or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Cronbach alphas ranged from .81 to .89 for PA scores and .88 to .90 for NA scores among Asian students and Korean immigrants (Yoon, Jung, Lee, & Felix-Mora, 2012; Yoon & Lee, 2010). NA was found to be significantly correlated with both anxiety and depression scales, while PA was found to have a significant positive association with anxiety with a Korean sample (Lim, Yu, Kim, & Kim, 2010). Cronbach alphas in this study were .89 (Sample 1) and .88 (Sample 2) for PA scores and .86 (Sample 1) and .87 (Sample 2) for NA scores. Migratory grief and loss. The Migratory Grief and Loss Questionnaire (MGLQ; Casado et al., 2010), a 12-item scale, was used to measure the experience of grief and loss associated with immigration. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). The questionnaire asks how often the respondent felt the way described in each item during the past 30 days. The Cronbach alpha of the MGLQ scores was .94 in a sample of immigrants in the United States (Casado et al., 2010). Construct validity has been supported by a positive correlation between the MGLQ and depression among a Chinese immigrant sample (Casado et al., 2010). Cronbach alpha for MGLQ scores was .91 in this study. Perceived discrimination. The Perceived Discrimination Subscale from the Acculturative Stress Scale for International Students (ASSIS; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994) was used in this study to measure racial/national discrimination experienced by international students. The Perceived Discrimination subscale con­ sists of eight items. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach alphas for the Perceived Discrimination subscale scores was .93 among a Chinese international student sample (Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012). The Perceived Discrimination scores have been found positively associated with general stress and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Chinese international students (Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012). Cronbach alpha for Perceived Discrimination scores was .90 in this study. Self-efficacy. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was used to assess self-efficacy. The GSE is a 10-item scale that assesses the optimistic self-beliefs to cope with difficult demands in life. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true). The average Cronbach alphas ranged from .75 to .91 with an average of .86 in samples from 25 nations (Scholz, GutierrezDona, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). Criterion-related validity has been supported through negative correlations with depression and anxiety among German and Costa Rican samples (Schwarzer, BaBler, Kwiatek, Schroder, & Zhang, 1997). Cronbach alpha for GSE scores was .89 in this study. Social connectedness. The Social Connectedness in the Eth­ nic Community Scale (SCETH) and Social Connectedness in Mainstream Society Scale (SCMN; Yoon, 2006) were used to measure two types of social connectedness. The SCETH is used to assess a sense of connection, belonging, and closeness to individ­ uals in the same ethnic group. The SCMN is used to assess the sense of connection, belonging, and closeness to Americans in the U.S. society (Yoon & Lee, 2010). Participants responded to each

WANG, WEI, ZHAO, CHUANG, AND LI

46

item using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach alphas were .90 for the SCMN scores and .95 for the SCETH scores for Asian interna­ tional students (Yoon et al., 2012). The scales demonstrated con­ vergent validity through significant positive correlations between SCMN and acculturation, as well as SCETH and enculturation (Yoon et al., 2012). Cronbach alphas for SCMN and SCETH scores in this study were .92 and .93, respectively. Perceived English proficiency. Perceived English Profi­ ciency (PEP; Wei, Liao, Heppner, Chao, & Ku, 2012) was used to measure self-perceived English proficiency. PEP was measured by five items asking participants to rate their overall proficiency as well as in four areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 4 (very good). We averaged the five items with higher scores indicating a higher level of perceived English proficiency. Cronbach alpha for PEP scores was .89 for Chinese international students (Wei, Liao, et al., 2012). The PEP’s construct validity has been supported by a positive association with the length of time in the United States as well as negative associations with acculturative stress and psychological distress among Chinese international students (Wei, Liao, et al., 2012). Cronbach alphas for PEP scores in this study were .94 (Sample 1) and .92 (Sample 2). Demographic questionnaire. Demographic questionnaire in­ cluded questions about gender, age, nationality, length of time in the United States, academic major, and academic level/degree.

Procedure Participants were recruited through international student offices at various campuses in the United States. The online survey was presented in English and took about 10 min to complete. Partici­ pants in Sample 1 completed the following measures: CCLS, SWLS, PANAS, MGLQ, and ASSIS. Participants of Sample 2 completed the following set of measures: CCLS, SWLS, PANAS, SCMN, SCETH, and GSE. Participants were offered the opportu­ nity to win one $50 and two $25 gift cards in a raffle. The survey for both samples included two validity check items (e.g., “Please simply select [Strongly Disagree] for this item”). Only participants that correctly responded to both validity check items were included in the samples of this study.

Results We used the first sample (N — 262) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to select the scale items. The second sample (N = 256) was used for confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to crossvalidate the factor structure results from the EFA. The reliability and validity analyses were conducted with both Sample 1 and Sample 2, separately.

Preliminary Analyses Item level missing data were minimal (Sample 1, 98% of the participants missed no more than two items; Sample 2, 96% of the participants missed no more than two items). For the EFAs, CFAs, and multiple group analyses conducted through Mplus 7, missing data were handled through robust full information maximum like­ lihood (FIML). Following Gottschall, West, and Enders’s (2012)

recommendations, missing values at the item level were handled through multiple imputations by pooling results from five imputed data sets prior to summing scales and subscale scores for regres­ sion analyses. The normality of the CCLS items were examined to determine whether using robust maximum likelihood (MLR) as the estimator for the EFA and CFA analyses was appropriate. Among the 29 items in the initial CCLS pool used for EFA in Sample 1, only one item had an absolute skew value over 1.0 (1.13), and four items had absolute kurtosis values over 1.0, but all under 1.20, which indicated that the items did not significantly deviate from normal distributions. Of the 14 CCLS items used for CFA in Sample 2, none of the items had an absolute skew value over 1.0 and four items had absolute kurtosis values over 1.0 with the largest being 1.23, which also indicated that the item distributions approximated normality. Thus, MLR estimation procedures were used in the EFA and CFA analyses of this study.

Sample 1 Item selection— exploratory factor analysis. We first con­ ducted exploratory factor analyses (EFA) for item selection with sample 1 (N = 262). Following recommendations from Brown (2006) to use consistent methods across EFA and CFA, all factor analyses were conducted in Mplus 7 with robust maximum like­ lihood (MLR) as the estimator and Geomin as the rotation method. To determine the number of factors, we conducted a parallel analysis by comparing initial eigenvalues of this sample with those generated through random data; the comparison suggested a threefactor solution. Because we initially used four domains to create the item pool, we conducted exploratory factor analyses on the 29 items with three- to five-factor solutions using an oblique rotation method (i.e., Geomin), due to the expected interfactor correlations in this multifactorial model (Brown, 2006). The most interpretable solution was a three-factor oblique-rotation solution because, for the four- and five- factors solutions, there were no more than three factors that consisted items without significant cross-loadings. In other words, the extra factors (beyond three) all consisted items that had significant cross-loadings on other factors. The three factors were generally consistent with the four categories used when developing the item pool but with two categories combined into one factor: Belonging-Competency, National Privileges, and Access to Home Familiarity. Among the 29 items tested in the three-factor solution, five items had significant cross-loadings. In addition, our goal was to create a brief scale with four to six items in each factor. We thus utilized the modification indices and significant cross-loadings as criteria to determine which items to retain. Using the modification indices that suggest correlations between item-residuals allows us to identify item-pairs that have overlapping content beyond variances associated with the factor. By removing relatively redundant items accordingly would result in more diverse sets of items that measure the same factors. Through a series of EFAs, we retained 14 items for the final CCLS (six in Belonging-Competency, four in National Privileges, and four in Access to Home Familiarity). Each of the items represent­ ing the three factors and their factor loadings, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. The loadings on the corre­ sponding factor were all significant and above .40 and without any significant cross-loadings at p < .05 level.

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE

47

Table 1 Items, Factor Loadings, Communality Estimates, Means, and Standard Deviations fo r the CCLS “Compared with your experiences back in your home country, NOW living in this new country you . . .”

1

Belonging-Competency 11. feel less connected to others around you 6. have a more difficult time fitting in with others 12. are less certain about how to behave appropriately in daily life 4. have fewer opportunities for intimate relationships 14. feel less engaged in daily topics of your surroundings 5. have less knowledge of the resources available in your environment Access to Home Familiarity 7. have less access to the cultural environment of home 8. have less access to entertainment from your home country 9. have less access to food from your country 1. have less in-person access to family members in your home country National Privileges 3. experience more restrictions as a foreigner 10. sense a loss of civil rights (e.g., employment, vote) 13. have to deal with additional requirements to stay in this new country 2. have less access to welfare (e.g., health care, benefits) for citizens

2

3

M

SD

.86 .81 .71 .68 .61 .55

-.0 4 .06 -.0 1 -.0 8 .02 .09

-.0 2 -.0 2 .14 .00 .13 .07

2.50 2.42 2.25 2.68 2.61 2.66

1.11 1.10 1.13 1.25 1.13 1.08

.00 -.01 .05 .01

.90 .69 .48 .44

.00 -.01 .00 .05

3.00 2.80 3.13 3.52

1.20 1.24 1.20 1.22

.00 .02 .00 -.0 3

.08 -.0 2 -.0 3 .02

.69 .65 .63 .41

2.98 2.88 3.33 3.05

1.15 1.35 1.21 1.25

Note. CCLS = Cross-Cultural Loss Scale. Final 14 CCLS items. Unique factor loadings significant at p < .05 are in bold. N = 262 participants. Factor 1 = Belonging-Competency; Factor 2 = Access to Home Familiarity, Factor 3 = National Privileges. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = strongly, 5 = completely). The instructions to participants were as follows: “People experience losses when they are in a different country, such as access to food from back home, the ability to handle daily tasks in the new environment, and a sense of connectedness with others. Please rate the level each item below describes your situation based on comparing your experiences back in your home country with now living in this new country.”

The three-factor solution accounted for 57.2% of the total vari­ ance explained before rotation. The six Belonging-Competency items all originated from those two categories with loadings rang­ ing from .55 to .86 and accounted for 33.3% of the total variance before rotation. The four Access to Home Familiarity items all originated from that category with loadings ranging from .44 to .90 and accounted for 12.9% of the total variance before rotation. The four National Privileges items also all originated from that cate­ gory with loadings ranging from .41 to .69 and accounted for 11.1% of the total variance before rotation. The EFA fit indices of the 14-item CCLS (comparative fit index [CFI] = .961, standard­ ized root-mean-square residual [SRMR] = .054, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .033) all indicated an accept­ able data to model fit. The correlations among the three factors

were .37 between Belonging-Competency and Access to Home Familiarity, .44 between Belonging-Competency and National Privileges, and .23 between Access to Home Familiarity and National Privileges. Construct validity. To examine the construct validity of the CCLS, we conducted correlations between CCLS total and sub­ scale scores and also with other study variables with sample 1 (Table 2). Based on Cohen (1988), a correlation coefficient of .10 is considered a weak association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is considered a moderate association; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is considered a strong association. The CCLS total and subscale scores in general had moderate positive correlations with migration grief and loss, which supported the convergent validity of this new measure. The CCLS total and subscale scores

Table 2 Intercorrelations Between CCLS Subscale Scores and Study Variables in Sample 1 Variable

CCLS

1. CCLS Total (CCLS) 2. Belonging-Competency (BC) 3. Access to Home Familiarity (AF1F) 4. National Privileges (NP) 5. Life Satisfaction 6. Positive Affect 7. Negative Affect 8. Migration Grief & Loss 9. Discrimination 10. English Proficiency 11. Length of Time in United States

.85** .65** .68** -.19* -.1 2 .43** .33** .51** -.26** -.0 2

BC

.32** .39** -.26** -.1 6 .42** .34** .44** -.41** -.22**

AHF

.20* .01 -.0 5 .26** .20* .24** .02 .07

NP

-.11 -.0 2 .22** .16* .45** -.0 8 .21*

range

M

SD

alpha

14-70 6-30 4-20 4-20 5-35 10-50 10-50 0-36 8—40 1-5

39.82 15.13 12.45 12.25 23.04 35.67 21.79 16.66 20.05 4.38 36.23

9.24 5.32 3.57 3.55 6.87 7.34 7.21 7.34 6.87 0.69 32.23

.83 .87 .72 .68 .88 .89 .86 .91 .90 .94

Note. CCLS = Cross-Cultural Loss Scale. N = 262. CCLS Total was computed by summing the three CCLS subscale scores.

> < . 001.

WANG, WEI, ZHAO, CHUANG, AND LI

48

had moderate positive correlations with measures of negative affect and discrimination but had weak associations with life satisfaction and positive affect. Next, we tested the construct validity across gender. We con­ ducted a series of multiple group analysis to examine whether the magnitude of the correlations between the CCLS (i.e., total score and three subscale scores) and the five variables measured for validity (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, mi­ gration grief and loss, and discrimination) were equivalent for men and women. For each of the CCLS total and subscale scores, we compared two models, an unconstrained model (i.e., the correla­ tions of the CCLS score with the five variables measured for validity were allowed to vary across genders) and a constrained model (i.e., the correlations of the CCLS score with the five variables measured for validity were set to be identical across genders). The results indicated that the magnitudes of correlations were invariant across genders for all the CCLS total and subscale scores with AMLRx2(5, N = 261) ranging from 1.72 to 6.29 {ps = .28 to .89). Incremental validity. We conducted two hierarchical regres­ sions to examine the incremental validity of the CCLS total and National Privileges subscale scores. A subjective well-being com­ posite score (i.e., subtracting the e-scores of negative affect from the sum of life satisfaction and positive affect z-scores) was the dependent variable. First, we examined the CCLS total scores’

incremental predictability over and above MGLQ scores, and then the CCLS National Privileges’ incremental predictability over and above ASSIS Discrimination scores. For each separate regression analyses, in Step 1, we entered the related study variable. In Step 2, the CCLS total or subscale scores were entered (see Table 3). The incremental variances of CCLS total scores in predicting subjective well-being above and beyond MGLQ scores was 8%. This result suggested that CCLS is a different construct from the previous migration grief and loss measured by MGLQ in predict­ ing subjective well-being. However, loss of National Privileges did not predict subjective well-being above and beyond perceived Discrimination. Reliability and other correlations. The internal consistency reliability for the CCLS total and subscale scores were overall adequate with Cronbach alphas all above .70 with the exception of the National Privileges subscale scores (.68) in sample 1. The CCLS total score had a Cronbach alpha of .83 and the CCLS subscale scores had Cronbach alphas ranging from .68 to .87. The ranges of corrected item-total correlations for the CCLS subscale scores were: .60 to .75 for Belonging-Competency, .34 to .54 for Access to Home Familiarity, and .40 to .66 for National Privileges. The CCLS subscale scores were differently associated with Eng­ lish proficiency and length of time in the United States. More specifically, loss of Belonging-Competency was negatively asso­ ciated with English proficiency. Length of time in the United

Table 3 Hierarchical Regressions fo r Incremental Validity in Predicting Subjective Well-Being Above and Beyond Related Variables in Samples I and 2 Variable

B

SE

3

AR2

AF

djs

.05***

13.37

1, 260

.08***

23.11

1, 259

.12***

35.28

1, 260

.02

1, 259

41***

87.38

1, 253

.04***

17.01

1, 252

4.67

1, 254

13.50

1, 253

Sample 1 (N = 262) CCLS-Total Score Step 1 Migration Grief & Loss Step 2 Migration Grief & Loss CCLS-Total Score National Privileges Step 1 Discrimination Step 2 Discrimination CCLS-National Privileges

-.07

.02

-.22***

-.0 4 -.0 7

.02 .02

-.12* -.30***

-.11

.02

-.35***

-.11 .00

.02 .04

-.34*** -.01

.00

Sample 2 (N = 256) Belonging-Competency Step I Social Connection-Mainstream General Self-Efficacy Step 2 Social Connection-Mainstream General Self-Efficacy CCLS-Belonging-Competency Access to Home Familiarity Step 1 Social Connection-Ethnic Group Step 2 Social Connection-Ethnic Group CCLS-Access to Home Familiarity Note. CCLS = Cross-Cultural Loss Scale. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

.11 .21

.02 .03

.34*** .43***

.07 .19 -.1 0

.02 .03 .02

.21*** .39*** -.24***

.05

.02

.13*

.05 -.1 4

.02 .04

.14* -.22***

.02* .05***

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE

States was negatively associated with loss of BelongingCompetency and positively associated with loss of National Priv­ ileges.

tions were invariant across genders for all the CCLS total and subscale scores with MLRAx2(6, N = 256) ranging from 2.61 to 6.74 (ps = .35 to .86). Incremental validity. Using the same method as Sample 1,we examined the incremental validity of the CCLS BelongingCompetency, and Access to Home Familiarity subscale scores over and above related constructs. The CCLS subscales, loss of Belonging-Competency and Access to Home Familiarity, pre­ dicted subjective well-being above and beyond Social Connection with Mainstream Society and General Self-Efficacy, and Social Connection with Ethnic Community, respectively. The incremen­ tal variances in predicting subjective well-being ranged from 4%-5% (see Table 3). These results provided support for the incremental validity of these three CCLS subscales. Reliability and other correlations. The internal consistency reliability for the CCLS total and subscale scores was overall adequate with Cronbach alphas all above .70 in Sample 2. The CCLS total score had a Cronbach alpha of .87 and the CCLS subscale scores had Cronbach alphas ranging from .73 to .87. The ranges of corrected item-total correlations for the CCLS subscale scores were: .58 to .77 for Belonging-Competency, .44 to .64 for Access to Home Familiarity, and .46 to .58 for National Privileges. English proficiency was negatively associated with CCLS Belong­ ing-Competency; whereas length of time in the United States was positively associated with loss of National Privileges.

S a m p le 2 Cross-validation— confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with sample 2 (N = 256) using Mplus 7 to cross-validate the measurement qualities of the CCLS using MLR as the estimator and Geomin as the rotation method. The CFA model constrained the 14 CCLS items to load onto their corresponding factors based on the EFA results. The three factors were permitted to correlate with one another. The range of standardized factor loadings for the factors was: .61 to .85 for Belonging-Competency, .52 to .72 for National Privileges, and .53 to .79 for Access to Flome Familiarity. The fit statistics for this three-factor oblique model (CFT = .971, SRMR = .038, RMSEA = .041) were strong (see Table 4). We also examined three competing models: a three-factor orthogonal model, a bifactor model (i.e., each item loads on a general Cross-Cultural Loss factor and one of the three orthogonal factor), and a one-factor model. The fit indices for all four models are presented in Table 4. Based on the general guidelines, the CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA all indicated an adequate data to model fit for both the three-factor oblique and the bifactor models, but not the three-factor orthogonal model or one-factor model. To compare between the three-factor oblique and the bifactor model, we examined the Akaike informa­ tion criteria (AIC). A slightly smaller AIC indicated that the three-factor oblique model was better, however, the bifactor model was comparable with slightly higher CFA and lower SRMR. Construct validity. To examine the construct validity of the CCLS, we conducted correlations between CCLS subscale scores and also with other study variables in Sample 2 (Table 5). The CCLS total and subscale scores overall had moderate correlations with measures of subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, pos­ itive affect, and negative affect), general self-efficacy, and social connection with mainstream society in the expected directions, which supported the construct validity of this scale. None of the CCLS total and subscale scores correlated significantly with social connection with ethnic group. Following the methods used for Sample 1, we examined whether the magnitude of the correlations between the CCLS (i.e., total score and 4 subscale scores) and the six variables measured for validity (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, general self-efficacy, social connection with mainstream society, and social connection with ethnic group) were equivalent for men and women. The results indicated that the magnitudes of correla­

49

C o m b in e d S a m p le M easurement invariance across genders. We also con­ ducted a multiple-group CFA to examine measurement invariance between men and women using a forward (sequential constraint imposition) approach based on Dimitrov’s (2010) guidelines (see Table 6). The first step involved examining models for each group separately. Results indicated adequate fit for both groups: for men, M LR x2(74, N = 226) = 89.96, p = .01, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .042; for women, MLRx2(74, N = 291) = 120.97, p < .001, CFI = .965, RMSEA = .047, SRMR = .040. Measure­ ment invariance was examined next, which involved establishing a baseline model (Model 0: Unconstrained Model) and then testing for equal factor loading across groups (Model 1: Invariant Factor Loadings Model), equal item intercepts across groups (Model 2: Invariant Factor Loadings and Intercepts Model), and equal item error variances/covariances across groups (Model 3: Invariant Fac­ tor Loadings, Intercepts, and Residual Variances Model). Nested models were compared using MLR scaled chi-square difference tests. In Model 0 (M0), no parameters were constrained to be equal across groups (i.e., men and women). Factor loadings were con-

Table 4 Goodness-of-Fit Indicators fo r the Competing Models o f the 14-Item CCLS Model

MLRx2

df

CFI

Three-factor oblique Three-factor orthogonal Bifactor One-factor

106.34 263.05 93.92 299.94

74 77 67 77

.971 .835 .973 .802

RMSEA [Cl] .041 .097 .044 .106

[.022-.058] [.084-.110] [.023-.061] [.094-.119]

SRMR

AIC

.038 .210 .033 .082

10428.35 10595.22 10435.90 10642.52

Note. CCLS = Cross-Cultural Loss Scale; MLR = maximum likelihood; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; Cl = confidence interval for RMSEA; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion. N = 256.

WANG, WEI, ZHAO, CHUANG, AND LI

50

Table 5 Intercorrelations Between CCLS Subscale Scores and Study Variables in Sample 2 Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

CCLS

CCLS Total (CCLS) Belonging-Competency (BC) Access to Home Familiarity (AHF) National Privileges (NP) Life Satisfaction Positive Affect Negative Affect General Self-Efficacy Social Connection-Mainstream Social Connection-Ethnic Group English Proficiency Length of Time in United States

.86** .75** .81** -.41** -.31** .31** -.32** -.51** .01 -.1 4 .11

BC

AHF

.43** .52** -.42** -.41** .32** -.37** -.59** .00 -.31** -.01

.49** -.21* -.0 9 .20* -.17* -.28** .02 .08 .13

NP

-.33** -.18* .21* -.18* -.28** .00 -.0 2 .21*

range

M

SD

alpha

14-70 6-30 4-20 4-20 5-35 10-50 10-50 10-40 5-35 5-35 1-5

39.49 15.02 12.52 11.95 22.82 35.83 22.05 32.63 22.26 26.88 4.35 31.85

10.61 5.54 3.67 3.85 6.59 7.64 7.40 4.68 7.13 6.31 0.67 33.21

.87 .87 .73 .73 .84 .88 .87 .89 .92 .93 .92

Note. CCLS = Cross-Cultural Loss Scale, N = 256. CCLS Total was computed by summing the three CCLS subscale scores. * p < .0 1 . * > < .0 0 1 .

strained to be equal across groups in Model 1 (M l). A nonsignif­ icant MLRAx2 difference between M l and MO, M LRA\2(11) = 11.53, p = .44, indicated metric invariance (i.e., invariant factor loadings). Both factor loadings and item intercepts were con­ strained to be equal across two gender groups in Model 2 (M2). The MLRAx2 between M2 and M l was nonsignificant, MLRA x2(1 1) = 15.89, p = .14, indicating that the intercepts were also invariant across the two gender groups. Model 3 (M3) added constraints for residual item variances/covariances to be equal across genders. The nonsignificant MLRAx2 difference between M3 and M2, MLRAx2(14) = 20.31, p = .12, indicated that item error variances/covariances were also invariant across genders. In sum, multiple-group CFA results indicate that the CCLS fulfilled the strictest level of measurement invariance between men and women in this sample.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable and valid measure to assess sojourners’ cross-cultural loss while living out­ side of their home country. The psychometric properties of the CCLS, a 14-item scale, were evaluated in two samples of interna­ tional students. The results of this study indicated that the CCLS is a promising measure with strong psychometrics properties. The internal consistency reliability coefficients for the CCLS total and

subscale scores were overall adequate, with those of Access to Home Familiarity and National Privileges marginal. These two subscales with marginal reliability coefficients also had lower item-total correlations. Thus, these two constructs are broader, and more items would have been required to reach more satisfactory levels of reliability. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated a factor structure with strong loadings of the 14 items loading onto three factors— Belonging-Competency, Ac­ cess to Home Familiarity, and National Privileges. A CFA com­ parison with competing models indicated that the three-factor oblique model had the best fit, and the bifactor model was com­ parable. Thus, both the subscale and total scores of the CCLS can be used. The results from multiple-group analyses supported strict CCLS measurement invariance and equivalence in construct va­ lidity between men and women in this sample, indicating that the CCLS can be applied equally to both genders. The correlations among CCLS subscale scores ranged from .20 to .52, indicating either moderate or strong associations among the subscales. Each subscale was highly correlated with the total CCLS score (see Tables 2 and 4). The Belonging-Competency subscale combined the loss of belongingness and competency, which could be due to them both being psychological and intan­ gible in nature, compared to the Access to Home Familiarity and National Privileges subscales. Moreover, it is conceivable that a

Table 6 Testing fo r Measurement and Structural Invariance Across Gender Groups Variable

MLRx2

df

Male Female [M0] Unconstrained [Ml] Loadings [M2] Loadings, Intercepts [M3] Loadings, Intercepts, Residual Variances

89.96 120.97 209.96 222.09 237.93 258.16

74 74 148 159 170 184

M comp

Ml-M0 M2-M1 M3-M2

MLRAx2

11.53 15.89 20.31

Adf

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

11 11 14

.979 .965 .970 .970 .968 .965

.031 .047 .040 .039 .039 .039

.042 .040 .041 .045 .047 .052

Note. MLR = maximum likelihood; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; M0 = The Baseline Model (i.e., all parameters freely estimated). Ml: The Invariant Factor Loadings Model (i.e., constraining all factor loadings to be equal across the two groups); M2 = The Invariant Factor Loadings and Intercepts Model (i.e., constraining all factor loadings and intercepts to be equal across the two groups); M3 = The Invariant Factor Loadings, Intercepts and Residual Variances Model (i.e., constraining all factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances to be equal across the two groups). N = 517 (291 women, 226 men).

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE

lack of belongingness in a foreign country may be associated and potentially lead to having less confidence interacting with others and more self-doubt about one’s knowledge and vice versa. Theoretically, scholars (e.g., Thomas, 1995) have noted that loss is associated with poor overall well-being. This was supported by the negative associations cross-cultural loss had with life satisfac­ tion and positive affect, and the positive association cross-cultural loss had with negative affect. Overall, these results indicate that the more cross-cultural loss an individual experiences, the worse their subjective well-being. This pattern is consistent with previous findings from Casado and Leung’s (2002) study, where elderly Chinese immigrants with higher migratory grief experience were more likely to be depressed. Additional evidence for the construct validity of the CCLS was further demonstrated through its asso­ ciation with migration grief and loss, a similar construct. And the incremental validity that CCLS total-score demonstrated beyond the MGLQ scores in predicting subjective well-being supported the added value of this new cross-cultural loss measure. Construct validity was further supported through moderate to strong negative associations between all CCLS total and subscale scores with General Self-Efficacy and Social Connectedness with Mainstream Society. It appears that the more individuals experi­ ence cross-cultural loss, the less confident they feel about their abilities and the less connected they feel with the host society. The positive association between perceived discrimination and crosscultural loss may indicate that the stronger individuals feel being treated unfairly in this new environment, the more aware they are about the losses they have experienced by living in a different country. Conceptually, the associations between these variables are in expected directions, as perceived discrimination, selfefficacy, and connection with mainstream society have all been associated with acculturative challenges and psychological well­ being in past studies (e.g., Wei, Wang, Heppner, & Du, 2012). However, the causal directions between these variables could not be determined in this study and should be further examined in future studies. The CCLS (total score) and two out of the three CCLS subscales demonstrated appropriate incremental validity. Belonging-Competency subscale in the CCLS subscales accounted for an additional 4% of the variance in predicting subjective well-being above and beyond Social Connection with Mainstream Society and General SelfEfficacy. This indicates the uniqueness of loss of belonging and competence associated with individuals crossing national borders, and it being different from disconnection with mainstream or general self-efficacy. The Access to Home Familiarity subscales in CCLS also accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in predicting subjective well-being above and beyond Social connec­ tion Ethnic Group, which indicate that the degree and scope of cross-cultural loss extends beyond a simple loss of connection with others. As for National Privileges subscale scores not demonstrat­ ing incremental validity in predicting subjective well-being above and beyond Discrimination, it could be a combination of two possible reasons. National Privileges scores had a relatively strong correlation with Discrimination ( r = .45) and were minimally correlated with positive affect and life satisfaction. Thus, the loss of national privileges could be perceived as a form of discrimina­ tion. However, the loss of these privileges did not seem to have large effects on one’s positive mood.

51

The CCLS subscales also had interesting associations with language proficiency and the length of time in the host country. English proficiency was only significantly associated with one of the three CCLS subscales—Belonging-Competency—for both samples. This makes sense because communication skill is an important factor in connecting with others to feel a sense of belongingness and being able to handle things to feel competent. In contrast, a loss of access to home familiarity and national privi­ leges seem to be less associated with individuals’ perception of their communication skills. Length of time in the United States was significantly and positively associated with the perceived loss of national privileges in both samples. One possible explanation is that the longer individuals are living in a new country, the more they become aware of their lack of benefits and rights compared to citizens of that country. Maybe the newer students are yet aware of any less obvious differences.

Limitation, Future Directions, and Implications Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged and directions for future research noted. First, the CCLS was initially developed and validated using international student sam­ ples in the United States; thus, the generalizability of the results to other populations, such as international students in other countries or other nonstudent sojourners living abroad, is currently un­ known. A future direction would be to examine the psychometric properties of the CCLS with diverse sojourner and immigrant samples to extend its use. Second, results of this study established the relationship between CCLS and subjective well-being. It will also be useful to examine the CCLS in relation to additional psychologically relevant variables, such as depression, anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, academic or vocational performance, as well as overall daily functioning. Third, the factors of the CCLS were determined in combination of an expert review process and exploratory factor analyses. A less structured and more empirically driven approach in future studies might reveal other dimensions of cross-cultural losses. Fourth, this scale development study is crosssectional. However, results indicate that the length of time in host country is related to certain types of losses (e.g., national privi­ leges). Thus, future studies may also examine how perceptions of cross-cultural loss may change over time. In addition, interven­ tions that focus on dealing with the different types of cross-cultural loss can be developed and examined for efficacy. Results of this study yield several practical implications. First, researchers and mental health practitioners can use the CCLS as a tool to assess the types and extent of the unique cross-cultural loss international students may experience when living in a different country. Assessment results can also be used to help international students become aware of the many challenges they experience living in a different country, which may be related to cross-cultural loss. Gaining awareness may help students normalize the adjust­ ment process instead of attributing it to their deficits. Second, assessment results could also be used to identify appropriate sup­ port and resources accordingly. For example, if a person’s most challenging losses are related to competency, he or she could first identify a few areas of competency that would be most important to develop (e.g., language, daily living skills, knowledge of host culture), and then seek ways to enhance those areas.

52

WANG, WEI, ZHAO, CHUANG, AND LI

Third, the concept of cross-cultural loss could be disseminated to new and current international students. Providing psychoeducational materials aimed to normalize and validate their losses might help these international students better understand their experi­ ences. Being aware of the losses experienced may help externalize the difficulties and take off some internal pressure to achieve at a high level. This notion can also help faculty and staff better conceptualize the challenges that international students face in the context of cross-cultural loss, which in turn, may minimize the tendency to pathologize or blame the students. Fourth, strategies aimed at helping international student recognize, discuss, and accept their losses may be developed to help them cope more effectively. By better understanding the extent and impact of their losses, international students may consequently be more encour­ aged to find alternative ways to cope. For instance, they might accept that there is not much they can do to change some aspects of their lives (e.g., accepting that they do not have national privilege) and feel empowered to focus on other areas of their lives that they can gain control of (e.g., maintaining connections with friends and family back home in different ways). In sum, being aware of cross-cultural loss has strong potential to contribute to the well-being of international students.

References Abdallah, T. (1998). The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Psycho­ metric properties in and Arabic-speaking sample. International Journal o f Adolescence and Youth, 7, 113-119. doi:10.1080/02673843.1998 .9747816 Aroian, K. J„ Norris, A. E., Tran, T. V., & Schappler-Morris, N. (1998). Development and psychomettic evaluation of the Demands of Immigra­ tion Scale. Journal o f Nursing Measurement, 6, 175-194. Arredondo-Dowd, P. M. (1981). Personal loss and grief as a result of immi­ gration. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 59, 376-378. doi:10.1002/j.21644918.1981.tb00573.x Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis fo r applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Casado, B. L. (2000). The experience o f grief and loss associated with immigration: An exploratory study o f elderly Chinese immigrants (Un­ published master’s thesis). University of Houston, Houston, TX. Casado, B. L., Hong, M., & Harrington, D. (2010). Measuring migratory grief and loss associated with the experience of immigration. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 611-620. doi:10.1177/1049731509360840 Casado, B. L., & Leung, P. (2002). Migratory grief and depression among elderly Chinese American immigrants. Journal o f Gerontological Social Work, 36, 5-26. doi:10.1300/J083v36n01_02 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis fo r the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal o f Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi: 10.1207/sl5327752jpa4901_13 Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121-149. doi:10.1177/0748175610373459 Ding, D., Hofstetter, C.. Norman, G. J., Irvin, V. L., Chhay, D., & Hovell, M. F. (2011). Measuring immigration stress of first-generation female Korean immigrants in California: Psychometric evaluation of Demand of Immigration Scale. Ethnicity & Health, 16, 11-24. doi: 10.1080/ 13557858.2010.523107 Eisenbruch, M. (1984). Cross-cultural aspects of bereavement. I: A con­ ceptual framework for comparative analysis. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 8, 283-309. doi:10.1007/BF00055172

Eisenbruch, M. (1990). The cultural bereavement interview: A new clinical and research approach with refugees. Psychiatric Clinics o f North Amer­ ica, 13, 715-735. Gilbert, K. R. (2008). Loss and grief between and among cultures: The experience of third culture kids. Illness, Crisis, & Loss, 16, 93-109. doi: 10.2190/IL. 16.2.a Gottschall, A. C., West, S. G., & Enders, C. K. (2012). A comparison of item-level and scale-level multiple imputation for questionnaire batter­ ies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 1-25. doi: 10.1080/00273171 .2012.640589 Institute of International Education. (2012). International students in the U nited States. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-andPublications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/InternationalStudents-in-the-United-States Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal o f Psychoanalysis, 27, 99-110. Lee, T. (2010). The loss and grief in immigration: Pastoral care for immigrants. Pastoral Psychology, 59, 159-169. doi: 10.1007/s 11089009-0261-3 Lim, Y., Yu, B., Kim, D., & Kim, J. (2010). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Psychometric properties of the Korean version. Psy­ chiatry Investigation, 7, 163-169. doi: 10.4306/pi.2010.7.3.163 Mooren, T., Knipscheer, J., Kamperman, A., Kleber, R„ & Komproe, I. H. (2001). The Lowlands Acculturation Scale: Validity of an adaptation measure among migrants in the Netherlands. In T. Mooren (Ed.), The impact o f war: Studies on the psychological consequences o f war and migration (pp. 49-70). Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon. Rakhsha, G. (2002). Crossing global boundaries: Experiences of loss by international students. Network o f Multicultural Training Professionals Newsletter, 6. Retrieved from http://w ww.nm tp.org/newsletters/ nmtplettervol6-1,htm#crossing Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for international students: Preliminary findings. Psycholog­ ical Reports, 75, 435-448. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.435 Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal o f Studies in International Education, 12, 148-180. doi: 10.1177/ 1028315307299699 Scholz, U., Gutidrrez-Dona, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 coun­ tries. European Journal o f Psychological Assessment, 18, 242-251. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242 Schwarzer, R., BaBler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., & Zhang, J. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Ap­ plied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 69-88. doi: 10.I l l 1/j . 1464-0597.1997. tbO 1096.x Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON. Siegel, C. (1991). Counseling international students: A clinician’s comments. The Counseling Psychologist, 19, 72-75. doi:10.1177/0011000091191006 Tartakovsky, E. (2008). Psychological well-being and ethnic identities of Jewish adolescents planning emigration from Russia and Ukraine to Israel: Changes during the post-perestroika period. International Journal o f Intercultural Relations, 32, 553-564. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.07

.001 Thomas, M. (1995). A long way from home: Thinking about international students. Psychodynamic Counselling, 1, 343-362. doi: 10.1080/ 13533339508402456 Vinokurov, A., Trickett, E. J., & Birman, D. (2002). Acculturative hassles and immigrant adolescents: A life-domain assessment for Soviet Jewish

CROSS-CULTURAL LOSS SCALE refugees. The Journal o f Social Psychology, 142, 425-445. doi: 10.1080/ 00224540209603910 Vromans, L., Schweitzer, R. D., & Brough, M. (2012). The Multidimensional Loss Scale: Validating a cross-cultural instrument for measuring loss. Jour­ nal o f Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 349-357. doi:10.1097/NMD .0b013e31824cc458 Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Fu, C., Zhao, R., Li, F., & Chuang, C. (2012). Profiles of acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese interna­ tional students. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 59, 424-436. doi: 10.1037/a0028532 Ward, C. V., Bochner, S., & Fumham, A. (2001). The psychology o f culture shock (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali­ dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Wei, M„ Liao, K. Y„ Heppner, P. P., Chao, R. C„ & Ku, T.-Y. (2012). Forbearance, acculturative stress, identification with heritage culture, and psychological distress among Chinese international students. Jour­ nal o f Counseling Psychology, 59, 97-106. doi:10.1037/a0025473 Wei, M., Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., & Du, Y. (2012). Ethnic and mainstream social connectedness, perceived racial discrimination and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 59, 486-493. doi: 10.1037/a0028000 Wei, M., Wang, K. T., & Ku, T. (2012). A development and validation of the Perceived Language Discrimination Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 340-351. doi:10.1037/a0029453

53

Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Mother and child: A primer of first relationships. American Journal o f the Medical Sciences, 236, 267. doi: 10.1097/ 00000441-195808000-00027 Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 Yoon, E. (2006). Acculturation, social connectedness, and subjective well­ being (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN. Yoon, E., Jung, K., Lee, R. M., & Felix-Mora, M. (2012). Validation of social connectedness in Mainstream Society and the Ethnic Community Scales. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 64-73. doi: 10.1037/a0026600 Yoon, E., & Lee, R. M. (2010). Importance of social connectedness as a moderator in Korean immigrants’ subjective well-being. Asian American Journal o f Psychology, 1, 93-105. doi:10.1037/a0019964 Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal o f Intercultural Relations, 35, 139-162. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011

Received August 28, 2013 Revision received July 12, 2014 Accepted August 1, 2014 ■

Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.