PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3367140

Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research.

J A Flaherty·F M Gaviria·D Pathak·T Mitchell·R Wintrob·J A Richman·S Birz
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The growth of cross-cultural psychiatry is now occurring at a time when psychiatry in general is emphasizing diagnostic clarity and the use of quantifiable and reliable methods of collecting clinical and research data. It is now imperative that cross-cultural psychiatry also examine its methods for developing instruments for use in cross-cultural research. This paper outlines a method for developing instruments designed in one culture for use in a second, and particular attention is given to cross-cultural validity or equivalence. Five types of equivalence are enumerated and defined: content, semantic, technical, criterion, and conceptual equivalence. These concepts are illustrated by examples from the authors' experience in research on internal migrants in Peru.

Explore related subjects

Cross-Cultural ComparisonHumansLanguageMental DisordersPeruPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychological TestsPsychometricsResearch DesignSocial AdjustmentTransients and MigrantsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J A Flaherty, F M Gaviria, D Pathak, T Mitchell, R Wintrob, J A Richman, S Birz. 1988. Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3367140/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Cross-cultural organizational behavior.

This article reviews research on cross-cultural organizational behavior (OB). After a brief review of the history of cross-cultural OB, we review research on work motivation, or the factors that energize, direct, and sustain effort across cultures. We next consider the relationship between the individual and the organization, and review research on culture and organizational commitment, psychological contracts, justice, citizenship behavior, and person-environment fit. Thereafter, we consider how individuals manage their interdependence in organizations, and review research on culture and negotiation and disputing, teams, and leadership, followed by research on managing across borders and expatriation. The review shows that developmentally, cross-cultural research in OB is coming of age. Yet we also highlight critical challenges for future research, including moving beyond values to explain cultural differences, attending to levels of analysis issues, incorporating social and organizational context factors into cross-cultural research, taking indigenous perspectives seriously, and moving beyond intracultural comparisons to understand the dynamics of cross-cultural interfaces.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗
PubMed2006

Ethnic minorities and prescription medication; concordance between self-reports and medical records.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in health care utilisation are frequently reported in research. Little is known about the concordance between different methods of data collection among ethnic minorities. The aim of this study was to examine to which extent ethnic differences between self-reported data and data based on electronic medical records (EMR) from general practitioners (GPs) might be a validity issue or reflect a lower compliance among minority groups. METHODS: A cross-sectional, national representative general practice study, using EMR data from 195 GPs. The study population consisted of Dutch, Turks, Surinamese, Antilleans and Morrocans. Self-reported data were collected through face-to-face interviews and could be linked to the EMR of GPs. The main outcome measures were the level of agreement between annual prescribing rate based on the EMRs of GPs and the self-reported receipt and use of prescriptions during the preceding 14 days. RESULTS: The pattern of ethnic differences in receipt and use of prescription medication depended on whether self-reported data or EMR data were used. Ethnic differences based on self-reports were not consistently reflected in EMR data. The percentage of agreement above chance between EMR data and self-reported receipt was in general relative low. CONCLUSION: Ethnic differences between self-reported data and EMR data might not be fully perceived as a cross-cultural validity issue. At least for Moroccans and Turks, compliance with the prescribed medication by the GP is suggested not to be optimal.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗