Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Measuring acculturative stress with the SAFE: Evidence for longitudinal

measurement invariance and associations with life satisfaction
Hanna Suh a,⁎, Kenneth G. Rice b, Chun-Chung Choi c, Marieke van Nuenen b, Yanmei Zhang d,
Yanina Morero e, Debra Anderson e
a
Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
b
Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
c
Counseling and Wellness Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
d
Department of Housing and Residence Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
e
International Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: International graduate students in the U.S. (N = 468) completed the Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environ-
Received 25 June 2015 mental Acculturative Stress Scale (SAFE; Mena, Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987) three times in successive semesters.
Received in revised form 25 September 2015 Confirmatory analyses of competing measurement models led to a revised version of the scale that was further
Accepted 1 October 2015
supported through tests of longitudinal measurement invariance. Associations between acculturative stress
Available online 22 October 2015
(General stress, Family stress) and life satisfaction generally revealed significant inverse relations both within
Keywords:
and between time-points.
International students © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Acculturative stress
Life satisfaction
Measurement invariance
Longitudinal research

According to the Institute of International Education (2014), there
are 886,052 international students making up 4.2% of all students in
higher education in the United States. With their cultural background
and intellectual capabilities, many international graduate students
diversify campus atmospheres and U.S. communities while also facing
unique challenges stemming from acculturating to new living and
educational environments.
International students typically undergo a process noted as accultur-
ation, a unique dual adjustment process that brings cultural and psycho-
logical change when two or more cultures and their individual
members are in contact (Berry, 2005). Berry (2005) notes that accultur-
ation can be relatively easy when there are mutual adaptations,
although cultural conflict and acculturative stress can also arise during
intercultural interactions. For instance, when there are greater levels
of cultural conflict that are problematic yet controllable, individuals
acknowledge that the acculturation process can be more complex
than simple adjustment or assimilation. Embedded in this rather
difficult acculturation process is the concept of acculturative stress, “a
stress reaction in response to life events that are rooted in the
experience of acculturation” (p. 708, Berry, 2005).
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Florida, P.O. Box
112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250.
E-mail address: hannasuh@ufl.edu (H. Suh).
Establishing psychometrically-sound measures of acculturative
stress need be a precondition before conducting studies that aim to
examine how acculturative stress impacts psychosocial adjustment,
along with investigations on the mechanisms through which certain
personality characteristics and contextual stressors impact adjustment.
Unfortunately, critical and necessary psychometric properties of scores
derived from scales used to measure acculturative stress have often
been assumed rather than tested. In an attempt to bridge this gap in
the literature, the primary purpose of the current study is to empirically
examine measurement properties of one popular measure of
acculturative stress, the Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental
Acculturative Stress Scale-Short Form (SAFE; Mena, Padilla &
Maldonado, 1987).
The SAFE was originally developed as a 60-item “FASE” scale
(Padilla, Wagatsuma, & Lindholm, 1985) designed “for use with
immigrant and acculturating populations” (p. 299). The scale contains
items measuring different sources and experiences of acculturative
stress including: feelings of social isolation, conflicts arising from
different values and beliefs of the host culture, conflicts between the
individual's values or goals and the expectations of their family, and
finally, experiences of racism. The original reports on the SAFE (or
FASE) combined items tapping these four dimensions of stressors and
derived a single acculturative stress score from the measure; to our
knowledge, there are no published articles describing the factor

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.002
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
218 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222
structure of the original SAFE (or FASE) nor the shorter, 17-item version
referred to by Padilla et al. (1985) or Mena et al. (1987). Nevertheless,
the measure has been used with a variety of different racial and/or
ethnic and cross-cultural groups.
Padilla et al. (1985) studied a Japanese and Japanese-American
sample but did not report factor structure or reliability of the FASE
score. Some subsequent psychometric information was reported on a
revised version of the SAFE in which seven items were added by Mena
et al. (1987) to the original 17 items of the short version of the SAFE.
They reported internal consistency of a 24-item SAFE score (Cronbach's
coefficient alpha) to be .89 for a mixed sample of mostly first- or third-
generation undergraduate students in the U.S. Fuertes and Westbrook
(1996) used the 24-item version of the SAFE in a study of 141 Hispanic
college students classified as early or late immigrants, or first-
generation (born in the U.S., parents were foreign-born). They initially
analyzed SAFE item-level data using principal components analysis
with Varimax rotation and reported support for a four-component
structure of the SAFE. Crockett et al. (2007) used the total score from
the 24-item SAFE in a study of acculturative stress and coping among
148 Mexican American students. They found strong internal consistency
for the total score (alpha = .91) and moderate positive correlations be-
tween acculturative stress, avoidant coping, and depression (rs = .28
and .33, respectively). We located only one study that examined the
factor structure of the SAFE and to our knowledge, since Mena et al.
(1987), most studies using the SAFE have been based on the 24-item
version total score and have involved studies of various racial and/or
ethnic minority groups likely to experience acculturative stress.
One characteristic of the SAFE is that it was originally developed to
measure acculturative stress of immigrants or other acculturating
groups and empirical studies thus far mostly involved immigrant
population. At the same time, its original authors acknowledged the
scale could be used for “acculturating populations,” a scope of use that
clearly includes international graduate students. Given these consider-
ations we explored the measurement structure and applicability of the
SAFE for international graduate students.
To our knowledge, rigorous factor structure and measurement in-
variance testing of the SAFE have not been undertaken. Measurement
invariance support is warranted because changes in acculturative stress
over time within the same group (not tested in any study we located
using the SAFE) depends on the invariance of measurement properties
over time. Otherwise, observed changes over time might simply be
the result of problematic measurement properties rather than represen-
tations of real changes or differences at the construct level (Chen, 2008;
Millsap, 2010).
Mental health relevant criteria that can be influenced by accultura-
tive stress include subjective well-being indicators, such as life satisfac-
tion. Defined as one's self-evaluation of happiness, fulfillment, and life
satisfaction (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003), subjective well-being is a
good proxy for positive psychological functioning. Several studies
examined the associations between acculturation and life satisfaction.
For instance, Baker, Soto, Perez, and Lee (2012) revealed that bicultural
individuals (i.e., less acculturatively stressed) showed higher scores in
life satisfaction among a sample of Asian Americans. More recently,
Tonsing (2013) used the 17-item SAFE and found a moderate, inverse
association between acculturative stress and life satisfaction in a sample
of Pakistani immigrants. In this vein, the current study sought to
examine any distinct associations between acculturative stress and life
satisfaction, which could provide guidance to mental health profes-
sionals to better understand and intervene to this population.
1. Method
1.1. Participants and Procedure
As part of a larger, multi-year investigation, a total of 468 interna-
tional graduate students from 44 countries participated in the study.
In two successive semesters, all new, first-semester incoming interna-
tional graduate students registered through university's registrar's
office (N = 1443) were asked to participate in the study. There were
no incentives to participate, therefore there was substantial attrition
across time points; about 18–19% of the original students returned to re-
spond for the second and third measurement occasions in the subse-
quent two semesters. There were 244 students (162 men, 82 women)
in the first cohort and 224 in the second cohort (150 men, 74
women); the gender distribution did not vary by cohort, χ2 (1, N =
468) = 0.02, p = .896. Most students in both cohorts were either
from India (39%) or China (30%); in all, 78% of the students were from
an Asian country. Reported ages ranged from 19 to 49 (M = 24.86
years, SD = 4.09). Most students were in master's degree programs
(64.3%), with no differences in the distribution of degree programs be-
tween cohorts, χ2 (1, N = 434) = 0.38, p = .538. A total of 58.1% of
the students were majoring in an engineering field, with the next
highest cluster of majors occurring in a program within liberal arts
and sciences (12.5%). At the start of the study, 32.7% of the students
had been in the U.S. for a month or less; 80.1% had been in the U.S. for
two months or less.
Students were invited to complete questionnaires administered
online through a secured web survey tool. Study questionnaires were
administered in English, in three randomized sequences. Graduate
students admitted at this university must demonstrate adequate
proficiency (based on standard testing) with reading and writing in
the English language.
1.2 Instrument
The Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturative
Stress Scale-Short Form (SAFE; Mena et al., 1987) is a 24-item self-
report stress measure (although a 17-item version of the measure was
also referred to in Padilla et al., 1985, we found no published record of
that measure). Respondents are presented with the items and asked
to rate each experience or situation using a scale that ranges from 1
(Not stressful) through 5 (Extremely stressful). Internal consistency
reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for total SAFE scores has ranged
from .89 to .93 in different studies (e.g., Crockett et al., 2007; Kim &
Omizo, 2005; Mena et al., 1987).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985) is a 5-item self-report measure that assesses general
levels of life satisfaction. Item responses range from 1 (Strongly Dis-
agree) through 7 (Strongly Agree) and the internal consistency reliability
estimate was .84 in another study of international students (Sam, 2001).
The SWLS has shown longitudinal invariance (Wu, Chen, & Tsai, 2009).
2. Results
Analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS Version 20 (2011) and
Mplus Version 7.31 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015). Following recom-
mendations from Sass, Schmitt, and Marsh (2014), we initially com-
pared results using three different estimators in Mplus and concluded
that the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) provided the best combina-
tion of clarity of results and convergence of solutions. Covariance cover-
age ranged from .974 to .998 for the Time 1 factor structure analyses. For
longitudinal invariance analyses, covariance coverage ranged from .088
to .998. Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to gen-
erate unbiased parameter estimates in the presence of missing data.
2.1. Factor Structure of the SAFE
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to evaluate five
different measurement models. First, a single factor model constrained
all 24 items to load onto a single acculturative stress factor. Two,
21-item, four-factor structures were also tested: consistent with
Fuertes and Westbrook (1996), one model constrained the four factors
 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222
to be uncorrelated (“orthogonal” model), and in another, we allowed
the factors to correlate (“oblique” model). We also tested two additional
and more complex models with 21 items; a five-factor hierarchical
model (“hierarchical”) and a five-factor bifactor model (“bifactor”).
The “hierarchical” model included the four SAFE factors and a
second-order stress factor. The “bifactor” model also included four
SAFE factors and a stress factor; the bifactor model partitioned variance
such that responses to items reflected unique variance in one of the four
SAFE factors and common variance from the general stress factor. Once
there was confidence in an initial measurement structure for the SAFE,
invariance over time and correlations with life satisfaction were tested.
Fit results of tested models appear in Table 1. The best fit from the
other initial models occurred for the four-factor oblique model and five-
factor hierarchical model. However, beyond fit, factor correlations in
these models raised questions about the distinctiveness of the factors to
emerge in these models. For instance, three of the six correlations
between factors in the four-factor oblique model revealed substantial
overlap: rs = .87 (Social and Environmental), .83 (Social and
Attitudinal), and .81 (Attitudinal and Environmental). Likewise, in the
five-factor hierarchical model, the factor loadings of Environmental,
Social, and Attitudinal on the second-order Stress factor were .95, .93,
and .87, respectively, again calling into question the value of separating
those three dimensions (the factor loading for Family stress in that
model was .71). Although factor loadings in these models were reason-
able, the structural results appeared more supportive of a more
parsimonious overall general stress factor and a separate family stress
factor than they were of a more complicated four- or five-factor structure.
From these initial findings, we considered and tested a more
parsimonious model involving a two-factor oblique structure. In that
model, three items loaded onto a Family stress factor and 18 items
loaded onto a General stress factor. This two-factor oblique model
produced fit indices comparable to the four-factor oblique model and
five-factor hierarchical model (see Table 1). Standardized loadings for
the 18 General stress items ranged from 0.47 to 0.74, and loadings for
the three Family stress items ranged from 0.69 to 0.83. Because 18
items to measure a single dimension seemed unnecessary, both statisti-
cally and for future subjects completing the measure, we trimmed the
number of indicators by retaining only those with loadings N 0.60. We
also examined item phrasing for content that could be confusing or
misunderstood among non-native English readers and speakers. Two
items had content that did not appear clearly linked to acculturation
or acculturative stress concerns and could be confusing to subjects
(i.e., “I don't feel at home,” and “I often feel that people actively try to
stop me from advancing.”). After eliminating those items and after
several successive CFAs, a final two-factor model included 10 General
stress items and 3 Family stress items. Using Raykov's rho (2009), reli-
ability was ρ = .89 (95% CI: .87, .91) for General stress, and ρ = .79
(95% CI: .75, .84) for Family stress at Time 1. We considered age as a pos-
sible covariate, given its variability in the sample. Multiple indicators
multiple causes (MIMIC; Jöreskog & Goldberger, 1975) results indicated
Table 1
Summary of Goodness of Fit indices for tests of SAFE factor structure.
Model χ2 df
1-factor-24 items 936.83 252
4-factor orthogonal-21 items 1145.95 189
4-factor oblique-21 items 561.93 183
5-factor hierarchical-21 items 569.52 185
5-factor bifactor-21 itemsa
2-factor oblique-21 items 633.34 188
2-factor oblique-15 items 302.05 89
2-factor oblique-13 items 192.99 64
Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual. All p-values for chi-square tests were p b .05.
a
This model failed to converge.
219
no effects of age, χ2 (13) = 8.72, p = .80. The correlation between the
two factors was .64, which was identical to the correlation obtained in
the initial model when 18 item indicators for General stress were used
(r = .64). Strong factor loadings (see Table 2) and improved model fit
suggested this model should be advanced for longitudinal invariance
analyses.
2.2. Longitudinal invariance
Measurement invariance typically begins with testing a configural or
baseline confirmatory factor analysis model in which items are
constrained to load onto specific factors, and group or time comparisons
involve basic indices of model fit (Dimitrov, 2010). The process of
invariance testing then proceeds by imposing additional parameter
constraints. Metric invariance involves constraining factor loadings
over time to equality. The scalar invariance model constrains item
intercepts to be invariant over time. The test of residual invariance
involves constraining error or disturbances associated with each item
to invariance. With each successive set of constraints, the effects on
model fit are tested. Statistically significant decreases in model fit are
signs of noninvariance.
Following several examples and recommendations (e.g., Bovaird &
Koziol, 2012; Millsap, 2005, 2010; Millsap & Yun-Tein, 2004), confirma-
tory factor analysis models were compared using the Yuan-Bentler
scaled chi-square difference test. Additionally, ΔCFI was also examined
to determine the improvement or decrement in model fit (Cheung &
Rensvold, 2002; Dimitrov, 2010). When necessary, modification indices
(MIs) were examined and additional model comparisons were conduct-
ed to explore misfit. In the present study, longitudinal invariance was
tested across three time points of SAFE data collected over the first
three academic semesters of study. We tested longitudinal invariance
separately for the two factors (see recommendations from Bontempo
& Hofer, 2007). Residuals for each indicator were correlated with their
counterparts at the different time points.
Fit results are displayed in Table 3. The initial test of configural and
metric invariance yielded relatively good fit results for General stress
items. Constraining intercepts to be invariant (scalar invariance) signif-
icantly worsened fit. Variations of the scalar invariance model were test-
ed based on modification indices. Ultimately, allowing two item
intercepts (item 17 at Time 2 and item 15 at Time 3) to be freely
estimated rather than constrained provided support for a partial scalar
invariance model. Subsequently, residual invariance was also supported
(see Table 3). Configural, metric, and scalar invariance were supported
for the Family stress indicators, but constraining residuals to invariance
significantly worsened fit. No modification indices suggested model
alterations that might support partial invariance. Because residual in-
variance is a rather high standard, and all other forms of invariance
were supported, we elected to move forward with this 13-item version
of the SAFE (Table 2).
BIC CFI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
26436.77 .806 0.076 (0.071, 0.081) 0.06
26918.08 .685 0.104 (0.098, 0.110) 0.28
26160.31 .875 0.067 (0.060, 0.073) 0.06
26157.56 .873 0.067 (0.060, 0.073) 0.06
26237.92 .853 0.071 (0.065, 0.077) 0.06
18200.88 .894 0.072 (0.063, 0.081) 0.06
15935.52 .920 0.066 (0.055, 0.077) 0.05
220 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222

Table 2
Factor loadings and standard errors of two-factor oblique 21-item SAFE and 13-item SAFE.

21-item SAFE 13-item SAFE

Item Unstd SE Std Unstd SE Std

General Stress
16. I often feel ignored by people who are supposed to assist me.* 0.76 0.05 0.74 0.78 0.05 0.75
15. It bothers me when people pressure me to assimilate.* 0.72 0.05 0.70 0.72 0.05 0.70
12. I don't feel at home. 0.83 0.05 0.70
11. Many people have stereotypes about my culture or ethnic group and treat me as if they are true.* 0.78 0.04 0.69 0.77 0.05 0.68
17. Because I am different I do not get enough credit for the work I do.* 0.78 0.05 0.69 0.81 0.05 0.71
21. Because of my ethnic background, I feel that others often exclude me from participating in their activities.* 0.71 0.05 0.69 0.73 0.05 0.70
23. People look down upon me if I practice customs of my culture.* 0.58 0.05 0.68 0.60 0.04 0.71
14. I often feel that people actively try to stop me from advancing. 0.66 0.05 0.68
10. I don't have any close friends.* 0.83 0.06 0.65 0.79 0.06 0.62
13. People think I am unsociable when in fact I have trouble communicating in English.* 0.75 0.05 0.63 0.71 0.05 0.60
19. Loosening the ties with my country is difficult.* 0.71 0.05 0.61 0.68 0.06 0.58
20. I often think about my cultural background.* 0.65 0.05 0.60 0.63 0.06 0.59
5. It is hard to express to my friends how I really feel. 0.64 0.05 0.59
2. I have more barriers to overcome than most people. 0.58 0.05 0.57
8. It bothers me that I cannot be with my family. 0.67 0.06 0.56
9. In looking for a good job, I sometimes feel that my ethnicity is a limitation. 0.78 0.05 0.56
24. I have trouble understanding others when they speak. 0.64 0.06 0.55
1. I feel uncomfortable when others make jokes about or put down people of my ethnic background. 0.60 0.06 0.47

Family Stress
4. Close family members and I have conflicting expectations about my future.* 0.89 0.05 0.83 0.89 0.05 0.83
3. It bothers me that family members I am close to do not understand my new values.* 0.79 0.05 0.74 0.79 0.05 0.74
6. My family does not want me to move away but I would like to.* 0.74 0.06 0.69 0.74 0.06 0.68

Note. Unstd = unstandardized loadings, SE = standard error, Std = standardized loadings. All factor loadings were significant (p b .001). *Item included in longitudinal measurement
invariance analyses.

2.3. Structural invariance
Tests of structural invariance are conducted similarly to those of
measurement invariance, with models imposing constraints on factor
variances and covariances, and factor means. Results revealed no signif-
icant variability in both the General and Family stress factors over time,
indicating comparable individual differences in acculturative stress
across time as well as equal covariance over time. There were no signif-
icant differences in factor means over time, indicating that the amount
of acculturative stress did not significantly change over time.
2.4. Acculturative stress and life satisfaction
Correlations between the SAFE General and Family stress factors and
life satisfaction appear in Table 4. Acculturative stress was inversely
and moderately associated with life satisfaction, rs ranged from −.23
to −.32.
3. Discussion
In this first rigorous measurement invariance analysis of the SAFE,
we examined the psychometric properties of scores of international
students and longitudinally across three consecutive semesters. Unlike
the originally conceptualized or analyzed SAFE with one factor (Mena
et al., 1987; Padilla et al., 1985) or four components (Fuertes &
Westbrook, 1996), our tests of multiple measurement models
suggested that there are two related factors expressed by SAFE items:
General and Family stress. Although eight items were deleted from
the original measure, given strong psychometric properties of the

Table 3
Model comparisons for invariance tests.

χ2 df p CFI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR Δχ2 Δdf p

Measurement invariance
Configural invariance 942.96 372 b.001 0.811 0.057 (0.053, 0.062) 0.096
Metric invariance 968.56 390 b.001 0.808 0.056 (0.052, 0.061) 0.104 26.54 18 .09
Scalar invariance 1005.43 408 b.001 0.802 0.056 (0.052, 0.061) 0.104 36.20 18 .01
Partial scalar invariance
989.19 406 b.001 0.807 0.056 (0.051, 0.060) 0.104 19.14 16 .26
(freed intercepts for item 17 [Time2] and item 15 [Time3])
Residual invariancea 1007.65 424 b.001 0.807 0.054 (0.050, 0.059) 0.109 26.04 18 .10

Structural invariance
Factor variance invariance 1008.73 426 b.001 0.807 0.054 (0.050, 0.059) 0.108 2.16 2 .34
Factor covariance invariance 1015.56 428 b.001 0.805 0.054 (0.050, 0.059) 0.120 5.82 2 .05
Factor mean invariance 1018.18 429 b.001 0.805 0.054 (0.050, 0.059) 0.120 2.68 1 .10

Measurement invariance
Configural invariance 19.67 12 .07 0.986 0.037 (0.000, 0.065) 0.061
Metric invariance 26.83 19 .11 0.986 0.030 (0.000, 0.054) 0.073 5.18 7 .64
Scalar invariance 30.51 23 .14 0.987 0.026 (0.000, 0.049) 0.071 3.35 4 .50
Residual invariance 48.32 29 .01 0.966 0.038 (0.017, 0.056) 0.100 15.97 6 .01

Structural invariance
Factor variance invariance 51.05 31 .01 0.964 0.037 (0.017, 0.055) 0.119 2.71 2 .26
Factor covariance invariance 51.50 33 .02 0.967 0.035 (0.014, 0.052) 0.126 0.72 2 .70
Factor mean invariance 53.22 34 .02 0.966 0.035 (0.014, 0.052) 0.123 1.78 1 .18
 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222 221

Table 4
Within- and across-time correlations between acculturative stress factors and life satisfaction.

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time 1
1. General stress 1
2. Family stress .65⁎⁎⁎ 1
3. Life satisfaction −.31⁎⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎⁎ 1

Time 2
4. General stress .51⁎⁎ .22⁎ −.32⁎⁎⁎ 1
5. Family stress .46⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ −.24⁎ .79⁎⁎⁎ 1
6. Life satisfaction −.20 −.02 .59⁎⁎⁎ −.24 −.05 1

Time 3
7. General stress .56⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ −.32⁎⁎⁎ .90⁎⁎⁎ .64⁎⁎⁎ −.20 1
8. Family stress .39⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎ −.12 .76⁎⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎⁎ −.10 .82⁎⁎⁎ 1
9. Life satisfaction −.26⁎⁎ −.13 .66⁎⁎⁎ −.23 −.23 .56⁎⁎⁎ −.20 −.04 1

Note. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001, ⁎⁎p b .01, ⁎p b .05.

13-item SAFE, we believe this updated SAFE appropriately encompasses
the scope and intensity of the acculturative stress.
General stress encompasses less differentiated items tapping
environmental, social, and attitudinal aspects of stress identified by
Fuertes and Westbrook (1996), such as the experience of racism, as-
similation pressure, interpersonal/social concerns, and values and
beliefs that can be at-odds with those of the host culture, consistent
with the literature on acculturation (e.g., Kwan, 2000; Yoon et al.,
2013). Family stress factor is expressed in items that reflect conflicts
between one's changed goals or values and family expectations. Sup-
port for the two dimensions is consistent with a complex under-
standing of cultural adjustment that involves simultaneously
occurring processes of acculturation and enculturation (Miller,
2010; Yoon et al., 2013).
Another major substantive finding was that the initial General stress
factor was inversely associated with life satisfaction early and late dur-
ing the duration of study whereas initial Family stress was associated
only with earlier life satisfaction. These results reflect that stress
stemming from the incompatible goals with the family is no longer a
consistent stressor linked to life satisfaction over time, and perhaps a
less prominent factor when understanding acculturative stress in
relation to subjective well-being.
Although these results provided substantial confidence in the two-
factor organization of SAFE items, one limitation was that international
students were treated as a single group. Because studies have found that
measurement factor structures have differed when different ethnic
groups are compared (e.g., Cokley & Patel, 2007), future work should
scrutinize the psychometric results within subgroups of international
students representing different countries or world regions. Future stud-
ies should examine additional covariates and outcomes in models of ac-
culturative stress trajectories, and whether acculturative stress is linked
to missingness in data patterns and more general risk for attrition
among international students.
In conclusion, we identified a psychometrically sound subset of
items to measure acculturative stress among international students,
and determined that different aspects of acculturative stress had
variable correlations with life satisfaction depending on time of
measurement. These results suggest that the reduced SAFE might be
used as an effective screening instrument that could inform interven-
tions focusing on both general and more specific, familial aspects of
acculturative stress.
References
Baker, A. M., Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., & Lee, E. A. (2012). Acculturative status and psycholog-
ical well-being in an Asian American sample. Asian American Journal of Psychology,
3(4), 275–285.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712.
Bontempo, D. E., & Hofer, S. M. (2007). Assessing factorial invariance in cross-
sectional and longitudinal studies. In A. D. Ong, & M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 153–175). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bovaird, J. A., & Koziol, N. A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered-categorical
indicators. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling
(pp. 495–511). New York: The Guilford Press.
Chen, F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of
making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
9(2), 233–255.
Cokley, K., & Patel, N. (2007). A psychometric investigation of the academic self-concept
of Asian American college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67,
88–99.
Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M. I., Torres Stone, R. A., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M., & Carlo, G.
(2007). Acculturative stress, social support, and coping: Relations to psychological
adjustment among Mexican American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 13, 347–355.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-
being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 403–425.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct
validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43,
121–149.
Fuertes, J. N., & Westbrook, F. D. (1996). Using the Social, Attitudinal, Familial, and Envi-
ronmental (S.A.F.E.) Acculturation scale to assess the adjustment needs of Hispanic
college students. Measurement & Evaluation in Guidance, 29, 67–76.
Institute of International Education | Open Doors (2014). Institute of International
Education. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-
Publications/Open-Doors.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators
and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of American Statistical Associa-
tion, 70(351a), 631–639.
Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2005). Asian and European American cultural values, collec-
tive self-esteem, acculturative stress, cognitive flexibility, and general self-efficacy
among Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
412–419.
Kwan, K. K. (2000). The internal-external ethnic identity measure: factor-analytic
structures based on a sample of Chinese Americans. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 142–152.
Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stress and specific coping
strategies among immigrant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 207–225.
Miller, M. J. (2010). Testing a bilinear domain-specific model of acculturation and
enculturation across generational status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57,
179–186.
Millsap, R. E. (2005). Four unresolved problems in studies of factorial invariance. In A.
Maydeu-Olivares, & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for
Roderick P. McDonald. Multivariate applications book series. (pp. 153–171). Mahwah,
NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Millsap, R. E. (2010). Testing measurement invariance using item response theory in
longitudinal data: An introduction. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 5–9.
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical
measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus Version 7.3. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Padilla, A. M., Wagatsuma, Y., & Lindholm, K. J. (1985). Acculturation and personality as
predictors of stress in Japanese and Japanese-Americans. Journal of Social
Psychology, 125, 295–305.
222 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 217–222
Raykov, T. (2009). Evaluation of scale reliability for unidimensional measures using latent
variable modeling. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42(3),
223–232.
Sam, D. L. (2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory
study. Social Indicators Research, 53(3), 315–337.
Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered cate-
gorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estima-
tors. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(2), 167–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705511.2014.882658.
Tonsing, K. N. (2013). Predictors of psychological adaptation of South Asian immigrants in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 238–248.
Wu, C. H., Chen, L. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Longitudinal invariance analysis of the
satisfaction with life scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 396–401.
Yoon, E., Chang, C., Kim, S., Clawson, A., Cleary, S., Hansen, M., ... Gomes, A. M. (2013). A
meta-analysis of acculturation/enculturation and mental health. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60, 15–30.