Content area
Full text
Contents
- Abstract
- Indigenous Asian Personality Measures
- Indian Indigenous Measures
- Filipino Indigenous Measures
- The PPP
- The PKP
- Korean Indigenous Measures
- Japanese Indigenous Measures
- The Yatabe-Guilford Personality Inventory
- New Personality Inventory
- Five-Factor Personality Questionnaire
- Interdependence Disorders
- Chinese Indigenous Measures
- Ko's Mental Health Questionnaire
- The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory
- Development of the CPAI
- Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment Inventory—2
- Clinical validity of the CPAI
- Beyond cultural uniqueness
- Discussion
Figures and Tables
Abstract
This article reviews attempts to develop multidimensional personality measures in Asia and their applications in clinical assessment. Indigenous personality assessment measures in India, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan are examined. These early attempts have not yielded a comprehensive personality measure that integrates a theoretical framework and an empirical program of validation. The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) is cited as an example to illustrate the process of developing an indigenous measure that meets the testing standards of established assessment instruments. On the basis of the research findings from the CPAI, the authors discuss the relevance of indigenous measures in clinical assessment in native cultures as well as in informing mainstream personality assessment.
Although the importation of well-established Western personality tests provides Asian psychologists with a wealth of evidence to support their applications, the indigenization movement in Asian psychology has raised a number of concerns about the “transport and test” function of test importation since the 1970s. The coming of age in Asian psychology has led to the examination of the cultural relevance of Western theories and tools. Notwithstanding the conscientious efforts made in the adaptation of major Western instruments in recent years, challenges have been raised on both ideological and practical grounds. Sue (1983) criticized the predominance of the etic approach in psychology at the expense of the emic approach. The etic approach emphasizes “core similarities” in all human beings, whereas the emic approach “utilizes a culture-specific orientation” (p. 584) relevant to the local context. In particular, importation of Western theories and measures represents the imposed etic approach in which Western constructs are assumed to be universally applicable and are “imposed” on the local culture. Ideologically, this approach is considered a form of cultural imperialism undermining national identity and consciousness. The use of imposed etic measures would “cut...





