Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Res Militaris Article o Keefe Et Alii Measuring Cultural Intelligence in The Canadian Armed Forces
Res Militaris Article o Keefe Et Alii Measuring Cultural Intelligence in The Canadian Armed Forces
Military personnel are often deployed to foreign countries on short notice and are
expected to quickly forge collaborative relationships in a multi-national environment. In
more favourable situations, personnel will operate in an atmosphere of peace working
alongside cooperative partners. Other times, they may be mired in difficult situations
where one is tasked to manage a minor disagreement between opposing groups or even to
prevent the outbreak of armed conflict between groups. Regardless of the perceived
situational ‘ease’, it is apparent that cultural intelligence is critically important to the
operational effectiveness of multi-national organizations and has been the topic of interest
for many researchers.1
Why is it that some people thrive in these intercultural settings while others
struggle? Do the former possess some skill, ability or trait that is absent or less pronounced
in the latter group ? Many in the business world and organizational research believe that
those who perform well in intercultural settings are displaying ‘cultural intelligence’.2
Cultural intelligence (CQ) is a meta-competency which identifies key competencies,
attributes, and skills that contribute to the ability to effectively interact, adapt and make
effective decisions within unfamiliar, and often complex and diverse cultural environments
(Ang et al., 2007). In recent years, researchers have investigated the usefulness of CQ to
better prepare military personnel for overseas employment, 3 and the role of CQ in
peacekeeping operations,4 and military operations.5
Cultural intelligence has been operationalized in the Cultural Intelligence Scale
(CQS). Originally developed and validated through administration to business school
undergraduates and working professionals in Singapore and the US, the Cultural
Intelligence Scale has since been administered in several countries, but not with military
personnel. The current research reports on the psychometric evaluation of the English
version of the CQS with a sample of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, which
includes an investigation of differences on the CQS on the basis of first official language
(FOL), rank level (Officers and Non-commissioned members), and education level (high
school versus university graduates).
The authors wish to thank James E. Cameron for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
1
Cf. Ang et al., 2007 ; Ford, Winton & Davis, 2009 ; Korabik, Oliver & Kondratuk, 2009.
2
Earley & Mosakowski, 2004 ; Alon & Higgins, 2005.
3
Davis, 2009 ; Ford, Winton & Davis, 2009 ; Korabik, Oliver & Kondratuk, 2009.
4
Seiler, 2007 ; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Annen, 2011.
5
Ng, Ramaya, Teo & Wong, 2005.
Published/ publié in Res Militaris (http://resmilitaris.net), vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 2
Cultural Intelligence
Ang, Van Dyne and Tan (2011) describe a confluence of phenomena at the turn of
st
the 21 century that served as the backdrop for the emergence of cultural intelligence as a
research construct : globalization on the one hand and the proliferation of ethnic conflicts
and tensions around the globe on the other. They also noted that paradoxically, as an
increase in globalization can lead to increased intergroup interactions, it may thus increase
the likelihood of intergroup conflicts and tensions.
Within this context, it seemed obvious that there would be an interest in gauging
the degree to which “individuals easily and effectively adapt their views and behaviors
cross-culturally” (Ang et al., 2011, p.582). The more cultural competency is displayed, the
more positive the intercultural interactions may be and vice-versa. It became clear that
there was an absence of constructs to adequately explain cultural competency, thus paving
the way for cultural intelligence, a “cleaner construct that assesses multiple aspects of
intercultural competence based on a theoretically grounded, comprehensive, and coherent
framework” (ibid., p.583).
Like emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and practical intelligence, cultural
intelligence is conceptualized as a non-academic intelligence : a ‘real world’ intelligence
(Ang et al., 2011). Although classified under the same ‘non-academic’ category, cultural
and emotional intelligence are different. Emotional intelligence shares some attributes with
CQ such as the idea that intelligence is multidimensional and involves both behavioural
and cognitive facets. However, although emotional intelligence may be meaningful within
one specific cultural setting, it may not apply in another. For example, social skills
developed in one country may be ineffective in another culture with different rules for
social interaction. CQ, on the other hand, allows someone to function effectively in
culturally diverse settings.6
Applying Sternberg’s (1985) multiple-loci of intelligence, Ang and colleagues
(2007) postulated that CQ comprises four unique facets that may or may not correlate with
each other – metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural. Metacognitive CQ
reflects mental processes that individuals use to acquire and understand cultural
knowledge. Cognitive CQ reflects knowledge of the norms, practices and conventions in
different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences. Motivational CQ
reflects the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning
in situations characterized by cultural differences. Behavioural CQ reflects the capability to
exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting with people from
different cultures.7 A key factor in cultural intelligence is self-efficacy, in that people high
in cultural intelligence are able to persevere in the face of challenges, particularly as it
relates to new environments (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004).
6
Earley & Mosakowski, 2004 ; Thomas, 2006.
7
Ang et al., 2007 ; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008 ; Ng & Earley, 2006.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 3
Ang et al. (2007) operationalized CQ using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS).
The CQS is a 20-item scale that was developed using a sample of Singapore undergraduate
students and cross-validated using a sample of US undergraduates, and working adults
holding executive and professional jobs. Initial model fit for the four-factor CQ model with
a Singapore sample was good : fit indices were greater than .90 and error indices less than
.08, while item-total correlations ranged from .47 to .71, and scale score reliabilities for all
four facet scales were greater than .70. Cross-validation studies using another Singapore
sample, and a US sample revealed similar results, suggesting that the CQS was a psycho-
metrically strong measure of cultural intelligence and can be generalized across time and
cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003 ; Ang et al., 2007).
Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2008), using a multitrait-multimethod approach
(Campbell & Fiske, 1986) with a sample of US MBA students showed that the CQS was
valid across methods of assessment (self-rating and observer ratings). Internal consistency
reliability for both methods were greater than .79, and correlations between self-rating and
peer-ratings for all four CQ scales were greater than .41, indicating convergent validity.
Moreover, these correlations were higher than correlations between difference CQ scales
across methods, proving evidence of discriminant validity. These results were confirmed
with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), using the correlated trait-correlated method
model (Marsh & Grayson, 1995).
Research investigating antecedents and outcomes of CQ report several interesting
findings. In a study to determine what leads to higher levels of CQ, Crowne (2008) found
that exposure to other cultures (through education and employment abroad) increases
cultural intelligence. Kim and Van Dyne (2012) provide a more refined picture by showing
how CQ serves to mediate the relationship between prior intercultural contact and one’s
international leadership potential. They further underscore how this relationship between
past experience and future potential is stronger among majority members than minorities.
Other research (Templer, Tay & Chendraseker, 2006) reported that Motivational
CQ was significantly correlated with several aspects of cross cultural adjustment (i.e.,
work, general and social interaction), and these correlations were consistent while
controlling for gender, age, time in country, and previous foreign assignments. Van Dyne
et al. (2008) found that self-rated and peer-rated Behavioural and Motivational CQ
predicted interactional adjustment (i.e., cultural adaptation), while controlling for sex and
cross-cultural experience. In a study by Chen, Liu and Portnoy (2011), cultural adjustment
and intercultural negotiation skills were linked to those high in motivational CQ. The
authors then presented results where realtors higher in motivational CQ achieved more
‘cultural’ sales (“sales between people of different cultural heritages”, p.3) than realtors
with low motivational CQ scores. In 2010, Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh and Tangirala
established the predictive value of motivational cultural intelligence on both work
performance and cultural adjustments among expatriates. Imai and Gelfand (2010) found
that individuals higher in overall CQ were more cooperative and had a greater desire to
understand their surroundings compared with individuals who score lower in CQ.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 4
(Crowne 2008 ; Templer et al., 2006). Given that the CQS was completed in English, it
could be argued that CAF personnel whose FOL is French have exposure to both French
and English cultures, and thus may have higher CQ. We investigated differences on the
CQS on the basis of rank level and education level based on the finding that higher levels
CQ was related to education of other cultures (Crowne, 2008). All CAF Officers are
required to have a university degree, while non-commissioned members (NCMs) are
required to be high school graduates. Thus, it could be argued that because Officers have
higher education than NCMs, there could be a difference in the level of CQ between these
groups. Rocksthul et al. (2011) also underlined the importance of cultural intelligence in
leadership positions working in cross-border environments, thus we were interested in
investigating whether military Officers scored higher in CQ compared to NCMs.
Method
Participants, Procedures and Material
The CQS was administered as part of the 2009 CAF “Your Say” survey. The
purpose of the Your Say survey is to measure attitudes, circumstances and experiences of
CAF members that senior leaders use to evaluate existing policies, procedures and
programmes. The survey was administered via the CAF email system to a random sample
of 3000 CAF personnel. One hundred and forty-eight surveys were undeliverable, thus
reducing the sample to 2852. Respondents were informed that the survey was anonymous,
the results were confidential, and completion of the survey, or any part of it, was voluntary.
Of 2852 surveys administered, 893 were returned for a response rate of 31%. Note
that this response rate is relatively low compared to other published studies (e.g., 58% as
reported by Chen et al., 2011). There are two possible reasons for the low response rate.
First, given the Canadian government’s commitment to Afghanistan, the CAF has been in
a high operational tempo and thus soldiers may not have had the time to complete the
survey. Secondly, in recent years, CAF personnel have been inundated with surveys
dealing with a variety of personnel and social issues and are experiencing what some
Commanders describe as survey fatigue, and as such some personnel have little motivation
to complete a survey if they do not perceive a direct impact on their day-to-day work
activities. However, this level of participation (31% of 2852) provides an overall margin of
error of + 3 % at the 95% confidence level. That is, the results presented here should vary
by no more than three percent, nineteen times out of twenty (Gower & Kelly, 1993).
Of the 893 survey respondents, 775 respondents reported English as their first
official language (FOL), 114 reported French, and four cases were missing data on
language. One hundred and ninety-nine respondents were junior non-commissioned members
(NCMs), 313 were senior NCMs, 163 were junior officers, and 218 were senior officers.
Education level ranged from High School (N = 351), College (N = 163), University certificate
(N = 34), Bachelor Degree (N = 210), University certificate higher than a bachelors level
(N = 23), Masters Degree (N = 89), Medical Degree (N = 8), to a doctorate degree (N = 7),
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 6
with eight cases missing education data. Twenty-four respondents were in the 16-24 year
category, 151 were in the 25-34 year category, 356 were in the 35-44 age bracket, and 362
were aged 45 or over. Seven hundred and forty-one respondents were male and 148 were
female, with four cases missing data on gender.
Respondents were asked to read each item and select one of seven responses (i.e.,
strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly
agree). The Metacognitive CQ scale consists of items such as “I am conscious of the
cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interaction”. The Cognitive CQ scale consists
of items such as “I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures”. The
Motivational CQ scale consists of items such as “I enjoy interacting with people from
different cultures”. The Behavioural CQ scale consists of items such as “I change my
verbal behaviour (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it”. Table 1
(see Appendix, p.15) provides a complete list of the CQS items.
8
Practical significance is the degree to which the null hypothesis is false (i.e., there appears to be a
meaningful difference in the variables). The following formula was used to calculate effect size :
d = 1.41t / n i: where n i = harmonic mean.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 7
extraction is 1, components with eigenvalues less that 1 are not as important, from a
variance perspective, as an observed variable (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 1996). All variables
with factor loadings less than .30 were suppressed, and rotated matrices were sorted by size
for ease of interpretation.
Using the other half of the sample (N = 443), the four-factor model gleaned using
the PCA was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 19.0. Each of
the facet items was allowed to load on only its associated factor and the factors were
allowed to correlate. The covariance matrix for the 20 items was analyzed. The variance
for each factor was fixed at 1.0 and parameter estimates were made under a maximum
likelihood method. Several statistics were used to assess the extent to which the model fit
the data : Chi-square analysis, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) with values greater than .90
and .95, respectively, indicative of an acceptable and excellent fit, and the Root Mean
Square error of approximation (RMSEA) with values less than .05 reflecting a close fit,
and between .05 and .08 reflecting a reasonable fit to the data.9
To assess the reliability of the four-factor CQS, Cronbach alpha coefficients were
calculated for each facet, as well as the overall score, and item-total correlations were
compared for the item-facet score and item-overall score. Cronbach’s alpha greater than
.70 and item-facet correlations greater than .40 were used as the acceptable level of
homogeneity (Gliem & Gliem, 2003 ; Wenek, 1987).
Results
A review of the histogram for all items reveal that the Cognitive and Behavioural
CQ items were normally distributed, but there was some negative skewness in the
Metacognitive and Motivational CQ items. However, all skewness values were less than
-1.00, and given the large sample size it is unlikely that the distribution of these items
deviate enough from normality to make a substantive difference in the analyses
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
9
Cf. Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Tabachnick, & Fidell, 2001 ; Marsh, Hau
& Wen, 2004 ; Sun, 2005.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 8
Reliability Analysis
Table 4 (p.17) provides the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the four CQ facets and
the overall CQ score, as well as the item-facet and item-overall score correlations for the
complete sample (N = 893). Cronbach alphas for all four facets and the overall CQ score
were high (greater than .90). All correlations for the item-facet and item-total score
correlations exceeded the requirement for the acceptable level of homogeneity (.40).
Indeed, all item-facet correlations were greater than .75, and all item-overall total
correlations were greater than .49, and for each item, the item-facet correlation was higher
than the item-total score correlation. These results are very similar to previous research
(Ang et al., 2007 ; Earley & Ang, 2003), and suggest that the CQS has high internal
consistency reliability at both the facet and overall total score level and is suitable for use
with CAF personnel.
English respondents was on the Cognitive CQ facet score (t = -2.00, p = .05, d = .20), with
French respondents scoring higher than English respondents. This result is not surprising,
given that some of the Cognitive CQ items deal with knowledge of another language (e.g.,
“I know the rules [e.g., vocabulary, grammar] of other languages”). Also, because the
French respondents completed the survey in English (their second official language), it
should follow that they would score higher on an item that asks about their knowledge of
another language, compared to English respondents who completed the survey in their first
official language. However, the difference between English and French respondents on the
Cognitive CQ facet did not meet the requirement for practical significance (according to
Cohn’s medium effect size).
There was a statistically significant difference among rank level on the Cognitive
CQ facet [F(3, 889) = 5.80, p = .001, partial eta2 = .02]. Post hoc comparisons using
Tukey’s HSD test indicate that Junior NCMs (M = 3.67, SD = 1.29) and Senior NCMs (M
= 3.68, SD = 1.28) were significantly lower than Junior Officers (M = 4.03, SD = 1.20) and
Senior Officers (M = 4.03, SD = 1.23), suggesting that officers are more knowledgeable of
the norms, practices and conventions in different cultures compared with NCMs.
Differences among educational levels occurred on the Metacognitive CQ facet
[F(7, 877) = 2.29, p = .026, partial eta2 = .02], and Cognitive CQ facet, [F(7, 877) = 2.75,
p = .008, partial eta2 = .02]. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test indicated no
statistically significant difference on the Metacognitive CQ facet based on education level,
but for the Cognitive CQ facet, High School graduates (M = 3.62, SD = 1.19) were
significantly lower than respondents who reported having completed a Bachelor Degree
(M = 4.01, SD = 1.16) and respondents who reported having completed a Master’s Degree
(M = 4.12, SD = 1.38). This result suggests that education may play a role in one’s level of
Cognitive CQ.
For exploratory reasons, additional analyses were conducted to investigate differences
on the CQ facets based on gender and age category. Differences occurred among males
and females on the Metacognitive CQ facet (t = -2.14, p = .03, d = .20), and Motivational
CQ facet (t = -1.97, p = .04, d = .17), with females scoring higher. However, none of these
differences met the requirement for practical significance (according to Cohn’s medium
effect size).There were no statistically significant differences on any of the CQ facets on
the basis of age category, suggesting that age is not a factor in one’s level of CQ.
Finally, all the CQ facets were significantly correlated with each other, with
correlation coefficients ranging from .37 to .59, which suggests that although the facets are
related to each other, they still differ enough to be considered separate constructs.
psychometric properties (i.e., Cronbach alpha greater than .90 ; item-total correlations
greater than .49), and loaded significantly on their associated facets (in both the principal
components and confirmatory factor analyses).
There were no practically significant differences on any of the CQS scales on the
basis of FOL. As stated in the results section, there was a statistical significant difference
between French and English respondents on the Cognitive CQ facet score, with French
respondents scoring higher than English respondents. As mentioned above, although this
result is not surprising given that some of the Cognitive CQ items deal with knowledge of
another language, the difference between English and French respondents on the Cognitive
CQ facet did not meet the requirement for practical significance (according to Cohn’s
medium effect size).
A limitation that could be levelled against this research is the unequal sample size
of French (N = 114) and English (N = 775) respondents, which it could be argued violates
an assumption in t-tests. However, as stated by Pedhazur and Pedhazur-Schmelkin (1991)
in non-experimental research, unequal samples from different populations do not pose a
threat to the validity of the study as long as appropriate sampling procedures are followed,
which was the case in this study. Indeed, it could be argued that the sample sizes reflect the
true difference in the numbers of bilingual Francophone and unilingual Anglophone
personnel in the CAF, and to equalize the numbers (i.e., select 114 English personnel)
might distort the differences and lose the generalizability of the findings (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). As well, Levine’s test for equality of variances was not significant, thus
meeting the assumption of homogeneity of variance and suggesting that the distribution of
CQS scale scores for French and English respondents is similar.
There was a statistically significant difference between Officers and NCMs on the
Cognitive CQ scale, suggesting that CAF Officers are more knowledgeable in the norms,
practices and conventions in different cultures compared to NCMs. Note that there was
also a significant difference on Cognitive CQ on the basis of education level, with high
school graduates scoring lower than university graduates. As indicated earlier, CAF
Officers are required to have completed a university degree, while NCMs are required to
have completed high school. Thus, it is difficult to say at this point whether the differences
between Officers and NCMs on Cognitive CQ were due to rank level or to education level.
Future research to further investigate the nature of the difference between Officers and
NCMs on Cognitive CQ is recommended.
Note that there were no statistically significant differences in CQ facet scores on
the basis of gender or age category, suggesting that men and women do not differ in their
levels of cultural intelligence, and that cultural intelligence is not a function of one’s age.
Also note that in this study, we used cross-sectional data to analyze the psycho-
metric properties of the CQS, and therefore the results cannot be generalized across time.
In recent years, there are an increasing number of calls for longitudinal research in
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 11
organizations (e.g., Kelloway & Francis, 2012). Thus, future research with Canadian
samples should focus on longitudinal studies of cultural intelligence.
Regarding the direction of future research, Ang and colleagues (2011) highlight the
importance of investigating personal attributes such as biculturalism and ethnocentrism as
possible antecedents of cultural intelligence. They also report that individuals’ language
skills are positively correlated with their levels of cultural intelligence. Indeed, this study
showed that bilingual respondents scored higher on the Cognitive CQ scale ; however, this
difference did not meet practical significance.
Keeping in mind the need to further explore the link between cultural intelligence,
cultural dimensions of one’s identity (Davis, 2012) and one’s language skills (DeWitt &
Adams, 2012), it seems apparent that an ideal population from which to test these
associations would be the great number of Canadians who declare themselves to be
bilingual. For example, the 2011 Canadian census revealed that 17.5% of Canadians were
“able to conduct a conversation in both official languages” (Statistics Canada, 2012), and
this value compares with the number of functionally bilingual Canadian Armed Forces
members, which is estimated at 22% (Annual Report on Regular Force Personnel, 2010).
In another line of research, Rockstuhl et al. (2011) underlined the importance of
cultural intelligence for those in leadership positions working in cross-border environments.
This study found that officers scored higher on Cognitive CQ compared to non-
commissioned members. Presumably, the skill set required to function effectively in
situations where one must deal with different groups of people “with contrasting economic,
political, and cultural practices” (p.286), may be different than the leadership needed in
more homogeneous environments. The findings of Rockstuhl et al. (2011) parallel those of
Groves and Feyerherm (2009) that showed a leader’s CQ to be a critical predictor of group
performance in culturally diverse team settings while it had less bearing in more homo-
genous work environments. Indeed, it may be useful to test the predictive value of cultural
intelligence and cultural identity variables on leadership outcomes among those serving in
‘cross-border’ contexts.
With close to 40 armed conflicts in 30 different locations recorded around the
world in recent years (Themnér & Wallensteen, 2012), investigating the relationship
between cultural intelligence and leadership in cross-border environments and their role in
conflict resolution is a worthy pursuit.
References
ALON, I. & J.M. HIGGINS, “Global Leadership Success through Emotional and Cultural Intelligences”,
Business Horizons, vol.48, 2005, pp.501-512.
ANG, S. & L. VAN DYNE, “Conceptualization of Cultural Intelligence : Definition, Distinctiveness, and
Nomological Network”, pp.3-15 in S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence :
Theory, Measurement, and Applications, New York, M.E. Sharpe, 2008.
ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE & C. KOH, “Personality Correlates of the Four-Factor Model of Cultural
Intelligence”, Group & Organization Management, vol.31, n°1, 2006.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 12
ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE & M.L. TAN, “Cultural Intelligence”, pp.582-602 in R.J. Sternberg & S.B.
Kaufman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press,
2011.
ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE, C. KOH, K.L. NG, K.J. TEMPLER, C. TAY & N.A. CHANDRASEKAR, “Cultural
Intelligence : Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision-Making, Cultural
Adaptation and Task Performance”, Management & Organization Review, vol.3, n°3, 2007, pp.335-371:
doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x.
ANONYMOUS, Annual Report on Regular Force Personnel 2008/2009, Director General Military
Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, ON, 2010.
CAMPBELL, D.T. & D.W. FISKE, “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multi-
method Matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, vol.56, 1959, pp.81-105.
CHEN, G., B.L. KIRKMAN, K. KIM, C.I. FARH & S. TANGIRALA, “When Does Cross-Cultural
Motivation Enhance Expatriate Effectiveness ? A Multilevel Investigation of the Moderating Roles of
Subsidiary Support and Cultural Distance”, Academy of Management Journal, vol.53, 2010, pp.1110-
1130.
CHEN, X-P., D. LIU & R. PORTNOY, “A Multilevel Investigation of Motivational Cultural Intelligence,
Organizational Diversity Climate, and Cultural Sales : Evidence from U.S. Real Estate Firms”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol.97, 2011, pp. 93-106.
COHEN, Jacob, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1988, 2nd edition.
CROWNE, K.A., “What Leads to Cultural Intelligence ?”, Business Horizons, vol.51, 2008, pp.391-399.
DAVIS, Karen D. (ed.), Cultural Intelligence and Leadership : An Introduction for Canadian Forces
Leaders, Kingston, ON, Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2009.
DAVIS, Karen D., Cultural Intelligence and Military Identity : Implications for Canadian Forces Leader
Development. Ottawa, ON, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, and Kingston,
ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2012.
DEWIT, Y. & B. ADAMS, The Impact of Language Knowledge and Ability on the Development of
Cultural Intelligence : Concepts, Relationships, and Measures, Guelph, ON, Humansystems Inc./
Ottawa, ON, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis/ Kingston, ON, Canadian
Forces Leadership Institute, 2012.
EARLEY, P.C. & E. MOSAKOWSKI, “Cultural Intelligence”, Harvard Business Review, October 2004.
EARLEY, P.C. & S. ANG, Cultural Intelligence : Individual Interactions across Cultures, Palo Alto, CA,
Standford University Press, 2003.
FORD, K.-A., S.E. WINTON & K.D. DAVIS, Measuring “Cultural Intelligence” and “Emotional
Intelligence” : An Annotated Bibliography, Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute and
Defence Research and Development, 2009.
GLIEM, J.A. & R.R. GLIEM, “Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability
Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales”, Conference paper, Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference, Ohio
State University, Columbus OH, October 2003.
GOWER, A. & K. KELLY, How Big Should the Sample Be ?, Social Survey Methods Division, Ottawa,
ON, Statistics Canada, 1993.
GROVES, K.S. & A.E. FEYERHERM, “Leader Cultural Intelligence in Context : Testing the Moderating
Effects of Team Cultural Diversity on Leader and Team Performance”, Group & Organization
Management, vol.36, 2009, pp.535–566.
GUDYKUNST, W.B., Bridging Differences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2004 (4th ed.).
HU, L. & P.M. BENTLER, “Cut-Off Criteria for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis :
Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, vol.6, 1999, pp.1-55.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 13
IMAI, L. & M.J. GELFAND, “The Culturally Intelligent Negotiator : The impact of Cultural Intelligence
(CQ) on Negotiation Sequences and Outcomes”, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
vol.111, 2010, pp.83-98.
KELLOWAY, E.K. & L. FRANCIS, “Longitudinal Research Methods”, in M. Wang, R. Sinclair & L.
Tetrick. Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology, New York, Routledge, 2012.
KIM, Y.J. & L. VAN DYNE, “Cultural Intelligence and International Leadership Potential : The
Importance of Contact for Members of the Majority”, Applied Psychology : An International Review,
vol.61, 2012, pp.272-294.
KORABIK, K., T. OLIVER & T. KONDRATUCK, Cultural Intelligence, 360° Feedback, and Development
of Self-Awareness among Canadian Forces Leaders, Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership
Institute, 2009.
MARSH, H.W. & D. GRAYSON, “Latent-Variable Models of Multitrait-Multimethod Data”, pp.177-198
in R.H. Hoyle (ed.), Structural Equation Modeling : Concepts, Issues, and Application, London, Sage,
1995.
MARSH, H.W., K.T. HAU & Z. WEN, “In Search of Golden Rules : Comment on Hypothesis Testing
Approaches to Setting Cut-Off Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralising Hu & Bentler’s
(1999) Findings”, Structural Equation Modeling, vol.11, 2004, pp.320-341.
NG, K.Y. & P.C. EARLEY, “Culture + Intelligence : Old Constructs, New Frontiers”, Group
Organization Management, vol.31, n°4, 2006. DOI : 10.1177/1059601105275251.
NG, K.Y., R. RAMAYA, T.M.S. TEO & S.K. WONG, “Cultural Intelligence : Its Potential for Military
Leadership Development”, paper presented at the 47th International Military Testing Association,
Singapore, 2005.
PEDHAZUR, E.J. & L.P. PEDHAZUR-SCHMELKIN, Measurement, Design and Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, 1991.
ROCKSTUHL,T., S. SEILER, S. ANG, L. VAN DYNE & H. ANNEN, “Beyond General Intelligence (IQ)
and Emotional Intelligence (EQ) : The Role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Cross-Border Leadership
Effectiveness in a Globalized World”, Journal of Social Issues, vol.67, 2011, pp.825-840.
SEILER, S., “Determining Factors of Intercultural Leadership – A Theoretical Framework”, in C.M.
Coops & T.S. Tresch (eds.), Cultural Challenges in Military Operations, Rome, NATO Defense College,
2007.
STATISTICS CANADA, Linguistic Characteristics of Canadians : Language, 2011 Census of Population,
2012 (Catalogue n°98-314-X2011001). Retrieved January 23, 2013 from Statistics Canada :
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011001-eng.pdf.
STERNBERG, R.J. & R.J. WAGNER, “Practical Intelligence”, pp.380-395 in R.J. Sternberg (ed.),
Handbook of Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
STERNBERG, R.J., Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence, New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1985.
STOKES, G.S., M.D. MUMFORD & W.A. OWENS, Biodata Handbook : Theory, Research, and Use of
Biographical Information in Selection and Performance Prediction, Palo Alto, CA, CPP Books, 1994.
SUN, J., “Assessing Goodness of Fit Confirmatory Factor Analysis”, Measurement & Evaluation in
Counselling & Development, vol.37, 2005, pp.240-256.
TABACHNICK, B.G. & L.S. FIDELL, Using Multivariate Statistics, New York, Harper Collins, 1996, 2nd
edition 2001.
TEMPLER, K.J., C. Tay & N.A. CHENDRASEKER, “Motivational Cultural Intelligence, Realistic Job
Preview, Realistic Living Conditions Preview, and Cross-Cultural Adjustment”, Group & Organization
Management, vol.31, n°1, 2006, pp.154-173 : doi 10.1177/1059601105275293.
THEMNÉR, L. & P. WALLENSTEEN, “Armed Conflicts, 1946–2011”, Journal of Peace Research,
vol.49, 2012, pp.565-575.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 14
THOMAS, D.C., “Domain and Development of Cultural Intelligence : The Importance of Mindfulness”,
Group Organization Management, vol.31, n°1, 2006, pp.78-99. Doi : 10.1177/1059601105275266.
VAN DYNE, L., S. ANG & C. KOH, “Development and Validation of the CQS : The Cultural Intelligence
Scale”, pp.16-38 in S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence : Theory,
Measurement, and Applications, New York, M.E. Sharpe, 2008.
WENEK, C., CFPARU Procedural Guide for the Psychometric Analysis of Selection Tests and for the
Detection of Test Bias, Note 11/87, Willowdale, ON, Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research
Unit. Technical, 1987.
Appendix
Table 1 : Rotated Pattern Matrix for the Item of the CQS
MOT COG MC
MOT
COG .34
MC .47 .44
BEH .55 .39 .49
Note: COG = Cognitive CQ; MOT = Motivational CQ ; BEH = Behavioural CQ ;
MC = Metacognitive CQ.
Metacognitive CQ
Cognitive CQ:
Motivational CQ
Behavioural CQ
I change my verbal behaviour (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural .82
interaction requires it.
I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural .88
situations.
I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. .82
I change my non-verbal behaviour when a cross-cultural situation requires .89
it.
I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. .78
© Cultural Intelligence Center 2005. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center. Note. Use of this scale granted
to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic
research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to cquery@culturalq.com.
Table 4 : Cronbach Alpha, Item-Facet and Item-Total Correlations for the CQS
Item-Facet Item-Total
CQS Item Correlation Correlation
Metacognitive CQ (α = .92, 95% confidence interval : .90 to.92)
MC1 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when .82 .65
interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds.
MC2 - I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people .83 .64
from a culture that is unfamiliar to me.
MC3 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross- .87 .67
cultural interactions.
MC4 - I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as .76 .67
I interact with people from different cultures.
Cognitive CQ (α = .92, 95% confidence interval: .91 to.93)
COG1 - I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. .74 .64
COG2 - I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other .66 .49
languages.
COG3 - I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other .80 .67
cultures.
COG4 - I know the marriage systems of other cultures. .85 .65
COG5 - I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. .79 .62
COG6 - I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviours in .82 .68
other cultures.
Motivational CQ (α = .91, 95% confidence interval: .90 to.92)
MOT1 - I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. .75 .58
MOT2 - I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture .79 .64
that is unfamiliar to me.
MOT3 - I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a .80 .61
culture that is new to me.
MOT4 - I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. .78 .62
MOT5 - I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping .77 .61
conditions in a different culture.
Res Militaris, vol.7, n°1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 17
Table 5 : CQS Means and Standard Deviation for the Overall Sample and by FOL, Gender and Rank
Motivational 5.39 5.42 5.39 5.37 5.55 5.30 5.38 5.55 5.39
CQ (1.01) (.93) (1.02) (1.03) (.92) (1.09) (.97) (.96) (1.03)
Behavioural 4.82 4.74 4.83 4.83 4.79 4.75 4.75 5.00 4.84
CQ (1.12) (1.18) (1.11) (1.13) (1.11) (1.11) (1.18) (1.00) (1.12)
Note : NCM = non-commissioned member; FOL = First Official language.