Interpreting Differences in Questionnaire Scores in the Context of Cultural Location: A Country Case Study of Symptom Check List -90- Revised Data from Albania, Germany and the USA

Q2 Arts and Humanities Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.36941/ajis-2024-0106
Blerta Bodinaku, Chris Evans, Dan Pokorny
{"title":"Interpreting Differences in Questionnaire Scores in the Context of Cultural Location: A Country Case Study of Symptom Check List -90- Revised Data from Albania, Germany and the USA","authors":"Blerta Bodinaku, Chris Evans, Dan Pokorny","doi":"10.36941/ajis-2024-0106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores inter-cultural differences using new SCL-90-R data from Albania and referential data from the USA and Germany.  The considerable mean score differences are interpreted in terms of historical, cultural, and political factors in Albania may affect psychometric measures creating large intercultural score differences.  The SCL-90-R was administered to a representative population sample in Tirana (N = 501). Global, subscale, and item score values from the Albanian sample were compared, where possible, to those from existing American and German samples. The Albanian data showed markedly higher means on the global scale and all subscales than the American and German values and differences at the item level from the German data (item data were not available for the USA). Differences were most marked on subscales of paranoid thinking, anxiety, and hostility. These findings are interpreted in terms of the cultural context of the country. Considerations are given to implications for therapists working with culturally diverse communities. Current mental health and psychotherapy practices do not sufficiently reflect research indicating complex relations between culture and psychopathology. Studies across cultures in new, concurrently collected data using psychometric methods to explore measurement invariance and its violations, are often not feasible. Simpler methods can be used with historical data to show marked differences and enhance intercultural psychotherapy research.   \n  \nReceived: 12 March 2024 / Accepted: 23 June 2024 / Published: 02 July 2024","PeriodicalId":37106,"journal":{"name":"Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2024-0106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores inter-cultural differences using new SCL-90-R data from Albania and referential data from the USA and Germany.  The considerable mean score differences are interpreted in terms of historical, cultural, and political factors in Albania may affect psychometric measures creating large intercultural score differences.  The SCL-90-R was administered to a representative population sample in Tirana (N = 501). Global, subscale, and item score values from the Albanian sample were compared, where possible, to those from existing American and German samples. The Albanian data showed markedly higher means on the global scale and all subscales than the American and German values and differences at the item level from the German data (item data were not available for the USA). Differences were most marked on subscales of paranoid thinking, anxiety, and hostility. These findings are interpreted in terms of the cultural context of the country. Considerations are given to implications for therapists working with culturally diverse communities. Current mental health and psychotherapy practices do not sufficiently reflect research indicating complex relations between culture and psychopathology. Studies across cultures in new, concurrently collected data using psychometric methods to explore measurement invariance and its violations, are often not feasible. Simpler methods can be used with historical data to show marked differences and enhance intercultural psychotherapy research.     Received: 12 March 2024 / Accepted: 23 June 2024 / Published: 02 July 2024
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解读文化背景下的问卷分数差异:阿尔巴尼亚、德国和美国症状清单-90-修订版数据的国别案例研究
本文利用阿尔巴尼亚的新 SCL-90-R 数据以及美国和德国的参考数据,探讨了文化间差异。 由于阿尔巴尼亚的历史、文化和政治因素可能会影响心理测量,从而造成巨大的文化间得分差异,因此本文从这一角度解释了巨大的平均得分差异。 SCL-90-R 的施测对象是地拉那的代表性人口样本(N = 501)。在可能的情况下,将阿尔巴尼亚样本的总体、分量表和项目分值与现有的美国和德国样本进行了比较。阿尔巴尼亚的数据显示,总体量表和所有分量表的平均值明显高于美国和德国的数值,在项目层面也与德国的数据存在差异(美国没有项目数据)。在偏执思维、焦虑和敌意等分量表上的差异最为明显。这些研究结果从国家文化背景的角度进行了解释。此外,还考虑了对从事多元文化社区工作的治疗师的影响。目前的心理健康和心理治疗实践并没有充分反映出研究表明的文化与心理病理学之间的复杂关系。在新的跨文化研究中,使用心理测量学方法同时收集数据以探索测量不变性及其违反情况往往是不可行的。可以使用更简单的方法和历史数据来显示明显的差异,加强跨文化心理治疗研究。 收到:2024 年 3 月 12 日 / 接受:2024 年 6 月 23 日 / 发表:2024 年 7 月 2 日
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
171
期刊最新文献
Economic Liberalization and Bank Fragility: Empirical Evidence from ASEAN Countries University Students’ Intentions to Develop Competences and its Influencing Factors: A Nigerian Context Entrepreneurship and Project Management: An Empirical Study of the Success of Entrepreneurial Projects in the Colombian Context Virtual Education and Post-Pandemic Academic Performance in University Students Bibliometric Profile of the Literature on Psychological Wellbeing in Women who Suffer Violence 2010-2024
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1