Because of the cross-cultural adaptability measurement tools are insufficient in Taiwan that leads to an implement limitation of practice and research. Faced with such a problem, this study used the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), originally developed by Kelly and Meyers in the US, as a measure tool and translated it into Chinese version. To increase the quality of translation, forward-translation, back-translation, and expert review were utilized. Data from 372 Taiwanese samples was selected by purposeful sampling to test the reliability and validity of CCAI Chinese version. The result showed that the reliability coefficient of both Chinese version (α= .91) and English version (α= .90) are similar. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) shows that the overall discriminate validity reached standard but the convergent validity still needs further improvement. The model fit reaches the acceptable level in some aspects (CMIN/DF < 3.00; RMSEA < .1; SRMR < .08), but other aspects failed to reach the criteria (CMIN < .05; CFI < .95). As such results are same as the findings from other studies based on U.S. samples, different language and culture may not be the only factor which cause such unsatisfied model fit. Base on the results this study suggests to further check and improve the translation process of CCAI into Chinese version; in addition, the dimensions of original CCAI English version should also be further reviewed and adjusted.
Because of the cross-cultural adaptability measurement tools are insufficient in Taiwan that leads to an implement limitation of practice and research. Faced with such a problem, this study used the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), originally developed by Kelly and Meyers in the US, as a measure tool and translated it into Chinese version. To increase the quality of translation, forward-translation, back-translation, and expert review were utilized. Data from 372 Taiwanese samples was selected by purposeful sampling to test the reliability and validity of CCAI Chinese version. The result showed that the reliability coefficient of both Chinese version (α= .91) and English version (α= .90) are similar. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) shows that the overall discriminate validity reached standard but the convergent validity still needs further improvement. The model fit reaches the acceptable level in some aspects (CMIN/DF < 3.00; RMSEA < .1; SRMR < .08), but other aspects failed to reach the criteria (CMIN < .05; CFI < .95). As such results are same as the findings from other studies based on U.S. samples, different language and culture may not be the only factor which cause such unsatisfied model fit. Base on the results this study suggests to further check and improve the translation process of CCAI into Chinese version; in addition, the dimensions of original CCAI English version should also be further reviewed and adjusted.