This art icle was downloaded by: [ Kyot o Universit y]

On: 21 Oct ober 2014, At : 00: 23

Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House,
37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion:
ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ hj pa20

Development and Initial Validation of the Multicultural

Personality Inventory (MPI)
a a a a
Joseph G. Pont erot t o , Alexander W. Fiet zer , Est her C. Fingerhut , Scot t Woerner , Lauren
a b c a a
St ack , Danielle Magaldi-Dopman , Jonat han Rust , Gen Nakao , Yu-Ting Tsai , Nat asha
a a a a a a
Black , Renaldo Alba , Miraj Desai , Chant el Frazier , Alyse LaRue & Pei-Wen Liao
a
Division of Psychological and Educat ional Services, Fordham Universit y at Lincoln Cent er
b
Depart ment of Counseling, Leadership, Lit eracy, and Special Educat ion, Lehman College,
Cit y Universit y of New York
c
Depart ment of Psychology and Counseling, St at e Universit y of New York at New Palt z
Published online: 09 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Joseph G. Pont erot t o, Alexander W. Fiet zer, Est her C. Fingerhut , Scot t Woerner, Lauren St ack, Danielle
Magaldi-Dopman, Jonat han Rust , Gen Nakao, Yu-Ting Tsai, Nat asha Black, Renaldo Alba, Miraj Desai, Chant el Frazier, Alyse
LaRue & Pei-Wen Liao (2014) Development and Init ial Validat ion of t he Mult icult ural Personalit y Invent ory (MPI), Journal of
Personalit y Assessment , 96:5, 544-558, DOI: 10.1080/ 00223891.2013.843181

To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 00223891.2013.843181

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained
in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no
represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he
Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and
are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and
should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever
or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of
t he Cont ent .

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic
reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any
form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / /
www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- and- condit ions
 Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(5), 544–558, 2014
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2013.843181

Development and Initial Validation of the Multicultural

Personality Inventory (MPI)
JOSEPH G. PONTEROTTO,1 ALEXANDER W. FIETZER,1 ESTHER C. FINGERHUT,1 SCOTT WOERNER,1 LAUREN STACK,1
DANIELLE MAGALDI-DOPMAN,2 JONATHAN RUST,3 GEN NAKAO,1 YU-TING TSAI,1 NATASHA BLACK,1 RENALDO ALBA,1
MIRAJ DESAI,1 CHANTEL FRAZIER,1 ALYSE LARUE,1 AND PEI-WEN LIAO1
1
Division of Psychological and Educational Services, Fordham University at Lincoln Center
2
Department of Counseling, Leadership, Literacy, and Special Education, Lehman College, City University of New York
3
Department of Psychology and Counseling, State University of New York at New Paltz

Two studies summarize the development and initial validation of the Multicultural Personality Inventory (MPI). In Study 1, the 115-item prototype
MPI was administered to 415 university students where exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 70-item, 7-factor model. In Study 2, the 70-item
MPI and theoretically related companion instruments were administered to a multisite sample of 576 university students. Confirmatory factory
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

analysis found the 7-factor structure to be a relatively good fit to the data (Comparative Fit Index = .954; root mean square error of approximation
= .057), and MPI factors predicted variance in criterion variables above and beyond the variance accounted for by broad personality traits (i.e., Big
Five). Study limitations and directions for further validation research are specified.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through
immigration trends, intercultural career opportunities, more
accessible travel, and virtual technology, psychologists have
devoted research attention to the personal characteristics of in-
dividuals more likely to adapt successfully to culturally evolv-
ing social contexts (Arnett, 2002; Benet-Martı́nez & Hong, in
press). One recent focus of attention has been the construct of the
“multicultural personality” (Ponterotto, 2010a; Ramirez, 1999b;
van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). Although there
are three independent models of the multicultural personality, all
draw on the same theoretical tenet: There exists a definable set
of narrow personality traits that predict cultural adaptability and
multicultural effectiveness, and that this subset of traits can be
mapped onto broader trait models of personality such as the Big
Five. Consistent with long-standing theory and research on the
incremental validity of narrow personality traits over broad traits
(Paunonen, Haddock, Forsterling, & Keinonen, 2003), it is ex-
pected that multicultural personality traits will predict variance
in intercultural comfort and multicultural effectiveness above
and beyond the variance accounted for by broad trait models
(Ponterotto, 2008; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000).
Ramirez (1991) was likely the first researcher to coin the term
multicultural personality. Working out of the Southwest region
of the United States in clinical and educational psychology,
Ramirez defined the multicultural personality as the “synthesis
and amalgamation of the resources learned from different peo-
Received March 18, 2013; Revised July 18, 2013.
Gen Nakao and Yu-Ting Tsai are now at Yeshiva University in New York,
NY. Miraj Desai is now at Fordham University at Rose Hill in Bronx, NY.
Chantel Frazier is now at Texas A & M University in College Station, TX.
Address correspondence to Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological
and Educational Services, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University
at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th St., Room 1008, New York, NY 10023-7478;
Email: ponterotto@fordham.edu
ple and cultures to create multicultural coping styles, thinking
styles, perceptions of the world (worldviews), and identities”
(Ramirez, 1999b, p. 30). This multicultural personality con-
struct anchored Ramirez’s (1999b) broader model (cognitive
and cultural flex theory of personality) and was marked by five
personal characteristics: (a) cognitive flexibility in adapting to
changing educational, work, and community contexts; (b) striv-
ing for self-actualization through cross-cultural interaction; (c)
evaluating one’s own biases and commitment to community
service and social justice; (d) cultural learning through travel,
study, and novel cross-cultural interactions; and (e) creative and
cognitive flexibility in solving group conflict, drawing on mul-
tiple stress coping strategies, and demonstrating high emotional
and social intelligence.
Ramirez (1991, 1999a, 1999b) developed several self-report
measures in an attempt to operationalize his multicultural per-
sonality construct; however, reports on these measures were not
published in peer-reviewed outlets and, as a result, have not
seen widespread use. The construct and predictive validity of
the Ramirez multicultural personality model awaits systematic
research attention.
The most popular theory of the multicultural personality is
that put forth by a team of researchers in the Netherlands whose
academic anchor was personnel and industrial/organizational
psychology. Van der Zee and van Oudenhoven’s (2000) theory
of the multicultural personality is anchored around the construct
of “multicultural effectiveness,” which is defined “as success
in the fields of professional effectiveness, personal adjustment
and intercultural interactions” (p. 293). These authors developed
the 91-item Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) that
centers around five personality traits: cultural empathy, the abil-
ity to empathize with culturally diverse individuals; emotional
stability, the ability to stay calm and collected under stressful
conditions; social initiative, approaching social situations in an
active manner and taking initiative in such situations; open-
mindedness, being open and nonjudgmental regarding diverse

544
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY
cultural groups and variant worldviews; and flexibility, an at-
titude of seeing new situations as positive challenges and the
ability to adapt behavior to fit cultural contexts. Recent integra-
tive reviews of roughly 40 empirical studies that incorporated
the MPQ have generally supported both the five-factor struc-
tural validity of the model as well as its incremental validity in
predicting score variance on cultural-related criterion variables
above and beyond the variance accounted for by the Big Five
(see Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Ponterotto, 2008; Ponterotto
& Fietzer, in press).
A limitation of the MPQ model is its specific focus on adult
expatriates and international students involved in international
sojourns. The model is not intended for broad applicability to
adolescents and adults living in culturally evolving and shift-
ing communities. As such, there is a strong need for a mea-
sure of the multicultural personality applicable to individuals
living within their culturally diverse communities and not nec-
essarily traveling abroad. Theory advancement and knowledge
acquisition are facilitated by investigating variant models and
instruments studying the same general construct. Then, over
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
multiple research studies, construct clarity and best instrumen-
tation emerges. Good examples of how competing models in
multicultural psychology advance the science of psychology
are the variations and multiple instruments measuring the con-
structs of acculturation, racial and ethnic identity development,
and multicultural counseling competence (see Gamst, Liang,
& Der-Karabetian, 2011; Ponterotto, 2008). Testing alternate
models of the multicultural personality aimed at a broad audi-
ence could markedly advance the status of theory and research
on the construct.
The studies described herein focus on operationalizing Pon-
terotto’s (2010a) theory of the multicultural personality. Work-
ing in the Northeastern region of the United States, this model
is anchored in the specialties of counseling and positive psy-
chology, and maintains a hygiology perspective with a focus on
average (“normal,” rather than “pathological”) persons working
to develop social and personal resources to maximize quality of
life in diverse contexts (Lent, 2004; Lopez & Edwards, 2008).
The theory is further anchored in evolutionary psychology (A.
H. Buss, 2012; D. M. Buss, 2009; Millon, 2004) and the environ-
ment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) model that specifies
three human needs central to social life adaptedness: sustaining
a basic sense of autonomy, achieving instrumental competence
through manipulation of the environment, and forming coopera-
tive relationships across a broad spectrum of humans (McAdams
& Pals, 2006; Ponterotto, 2010a). The theory also builds on inte-
grative holistic frameworks for promoting human development
in social-cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; McAdams &
Pals, 2006).
In addition to broad anchoring in counseling, positive, evo-
lutionary, and developmental psychology, Ponterotto’s model
(Ponterotto, 2010a; Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006) inte-
grated specific bodies of multicultural theory and research iden-
tified after an extensive literature review on cultural identity
and multicultural competence. Ten specific models of research
integrated included the multicultural personality conceptions of
Ramirez (1999b) and van der Zee and van Oudenhoven (2000,
2001), as well as the following eight content areas: the toler-
ant personality model (Allport, 1979); the coping with cultural
diversity model (Coleman, 1995); racial identity models (e.g.,
545
Helms, 1990); ethnic identity development (Phinney & Ong,
2007); gay and lesbian identity models (McCarn & Fassinger,
1996); the universal-diverse orientation model (Miville et al.,
1999); the expansionist theory of gender roles (Barnett & Hyde,
2001); and culturally indigenous models of mental health, par-
ticularly African psychology (Jones, 2003; Myers, 1993), Na-
tive American spirit perspectives (Duran, 2006), and Eastern
philosophy (Huang, 2010). Detailed descriptions of the mod-
els and specific research emanating from them are discussed
in Ponterotto (2010a), as is the rationale for incorporating the
models in building his multicultural personality theory. To sum-
marize the collective research briefly, those individuals who
score higher on measures of the constructs tend to report higher
levels of multicultural exposure and competence, less prejudice,
higher self-esteem and life satisfaction, and more self-efficacy,
cognitive flexibility, and work and academic engagement.
Ponterotto’s (2010a) model assumes that its constituent fac-
tors (personality traits) fall at a third level of the pyramid hier-
archy of personality. At the first level is a higher order general
factor of personality with a positive and negative pole (Rushton,
Bons, & Hur, 2008). The positive end of the continuum is most
characterized by prosocial behavior, cooperation, and emotional
stability, whereas the negative end of the pole is represented
by an overall state of inefficiency and antagonism. The second
level of the personality hierarchy would be represented by broad
models of personality such as the Big Three (Positive Emotion-
ality, Negative Emotionality, and Constraint; Tellegen, 1982), or
the Big Five (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and Openness; Costa & McCrae, 1992). A third
level of personality would be the narrow traits of the multicul-
tural personality model represented by the van der Zee and van
Oudenhoven (2000) model or Ponterotto’s (2010a) model. Mul-
ticultural personality traits “represent expressed links between
broad dispositional traits (e.g., extraversion, neuroticism) and
adaptive cognition and behavior in culturally heterogeneous so-
cieties” (Ponterotto, 2010a, p. 718).
As more narrow personality traits, the multicultural personal-
ity factors are akin to the constructs of characteristic adaptations
(Costa & McCrae, 1994), personal action constructs (Little,
1999), and middle-level personality units (D. M. Buss & Cantor,
1989). Among the specific characteristics of the multicultural
personality are emotional stability, higher levels of racial and
ethnic identity development, a desire for cross-cultural interac-
tions, a sense of humor, a spiritual essence, and a commitment
to social justice issues (Ponterotto, 2010a; Ponterotto et al.,
2006).
The hygiology model of the multicultural personality posits
trait relationships with proximal, medial, and distal variables
and thus provides a nomological net for model testing. At the
proximal level, criterion variables would include extent of cross-
cultural interactions, multicultural awareness, and appreciating
diverse cultural perspectives. At the medial level, the model pre-
dicts trait correlations with nonspecific multicultural constructs
such as general self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility. Finally,
at the distal level the multicultural personality expects positive
relationships with general quality of life indicators such as self-
esteem and life satisfaction. It is expected that trait correlations
with proximal variables will be strong (large effect size), with
medial variables, moderate (medium effect size), and with distal
variables, modest (small effect size).
 546
STUDY 1: ITEM SELECTION AND FACTOR STRUCTURE
Purpose
The purpose of Study 1 was twofold: (a) to operationalize
the Ponterotto (2010a) model of the multicultural personality
through the development and content validation of scale items,
and (b) to subject the initial pool of items to a development
sample for the purpose of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
factor identification.
Method
Initial item development and content validity. An initial
pool of 134 items was generated by the research team from
the definitions and descriptions of the multicultural models
or theories undergirding Ponterotto’s (2010a; Ponterotto et al.,
2006) multicultural personality model. More specifically, pools
of items were written to assess levels of racial identity, ethnic
identity, sexual-orientation identity, and the tolerant personality
(Allport, 1979; Helms, 1990; Phinney & Ong, 2007); and lev-
els of cultural flexibility, gender role flexibility, openness, and
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
universal orientation (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Coleman, 1995;
Miville et al., 1999; Ramirez, 1999b). Additional items were
written to represent the expatriate model of the multicultural
personality (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven 2000, 2001; van
der Zee, van Oudenhoven, Ponterotto, & Fietzer, 2013) inclusive
of cultural empathy, emotional health, initiative-taking, open-
mindedness, and flexibility. Items also represented indigenous
psychology models and with an emphasis on spirituality and
interconnectedness (Duran, 2006; Myers, 1993).
A final subset of items transcended multiple theoretical mod-
els integrated in Ponterotto (2010a). For example, the construct
of humor is emphasized in the model of the tolerant personality
(Allport, 1979) and in the worldview and cultural adaptabil-
ity perceptions of many indigenous peoples (Garrett, Garrett,
Torres-Rivera, Wilbur, & Roberts-Wilbur, 2005; Jones, 2003;
Vereen, Butler, Williams, Darg, & Downing, 2006); and the
construct of social activism is central to the models of cultural
flex theory and highest levels of racial identity development
(Ponterotto et al., 2006; Ramirez, 1999b). All Multicultural
Personality Inventory (MPI) items were newly written and not
extracted from previous measures.
Focus groups. The senior author of this study conducted
two focus groups as part of the face and content validation pro-
cess. In the first focus group the researcher met for 2 hours with
five doctoral students and four faculty specializing in multicul-
tural research at a neighboring university. This group reviewed
the domains of the multicultural personality and sample items,
and made suggestions for item removal or the addition of new
items. The research team then met, reviewed the focus groups
results, and settled on a resultant pool of 124 items.
In the second focus group, the senior author led a 2-hour dis-
cussion with four advanced counseling psychology graduate stu-
dents (who were not part of the research team) at the researcher’s
home institution. Focus group participants were engaged in re-
search and clinical practice centering on multicultural issues,
had studied in-depth the multicultural personality theory, were
fully bicultural and bilingual, and had adapted successfully in
multiple cultures and work and academic environments. The
participants completed the 124-item MPI and then reviewed
the items with the focus group leader. Focus group evaluation
PONTEROTTO ET AL.
centered on item comprehension, domain representation, and
possible negative wording of some items. This process resulted
in the removal of 13 items that seemed unclear or redundant,
the rewriting and clarification of a number of items, and the
addition of four new items, resulting in a pool of 115 items.
Of this pool of items, 13 are negatively worded. The primary
criterion in deciding on positively or negatively worded items
was the comprehensibility and clarity of the item.
Expert panel review. In the next step of content validation,
the revised 115-item MPI was sent to three national scholars
with expertise in the multicultural personality construct (i.e.,
they had published in the area or incorporated the construct into
their teaching) who were asked to evaluate the items based on
domain appropriateness and clarity. The evaluators made a num-
ber of suggestions for clarifying and editing items, which were
implemented, but no additional items were deleted or added at
this point. It was decided that the revised 115-item MPI was
ready for large sample testing.
Participants
Four hundred and seventeen participants completed ques-
tionnaire packets. Of this number, 415 were complete and us-
able. Participants were enrolled in a doctoral granting univer-
sity in a large metropolitan area in the Northeast region of the
United States. The university enrolls 15,000 students. Partici-
pants ranged in age from 17 to 60 years, with a mean age of 23.5
(SD = 6.7). The sample was primarily female (73%), and di-
verse racially. Specifically, 59% of respondents self-reported as
White, 12% Hispanic-White, 5% Hispanic-Black, 8% African
American or Black, 7% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 1%
Native American, 7% biracial or multiracial, and 1% other. Par-
ticipants represented all levels of university education, with 13%
freshmen, 10% sophomores, 18% juniors, 14% seniors, 30% re-
ceiving master’s degrees, 12% pursuing doctoral degrees, and
3% taking other graduate and professional degrees. With re-
gard to student religious affiliations, 46% were Catholic, 11%
were Jewish, 9% were Protestant, 9% were agnostic, 2% were
Muslim, 1% each were Mormon, Hindu, and Buddhist; 20%
indicated “other.”
Instrument
The 115 items of the Multicultural Personality (MPI) were or-
dered randomly in the survey packet. Research team discussion,
focus group analysis, and content validator perceptions sup-
ported a 5-point Likert-type scaling format. More specifically,
the scaling of 1 (disagree strongly), 2 (disagree), 3 (unsure), 4
(agree), and 5 (agree strongly) was thought to be adequate to
capture the full range of possible self-appraisal on the items.
With regard to item comprehension and readability levels, two
assessments were conducted. The Flesch Kincaid Grade level
(Flesch, 1948), found 75% of items at 9th-grade reading level or
below and 25% of the items at the 10th grade or higher. The Rix
Readability Analysis was conducted on the MPI and resulted
in a Rix coefficient of 3.26, which translates on Anderson’s
(1983) conversion table to a reading level between the eighth
and ninth grades. Considering the results of both analyses, the
MPI reading level is currently set at the 10th grade or higher.
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Procedure
After receiving the university’s institutional review board ap-
proval, we prepared and sent questionnaire packets that included
the 115-item MPI and a set of demographic questions. The aver-
age completion time for packets was 25 minutes. Data were col-
lected through class visitation and through data collection sites
outside popular student gathering areas (e.g., cafeteria, library).
A minimum of two research team members were present during
all data collection to manage informed consent, collection, and
debriefing procedures. Students were debriefed individually or
in groups (for the class visitations), and each received $2 cash
and a three-page encyclopedia entry on multicultural personality
(i.e., Ponterotto, 2006) after completion of the study.
Results
Factor analysis decision criteria. A number of a priori
decision criteria were implemented to guide the selection of
factors and items. The National Education Association’s for-
mula (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) for determining representative
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
sample size when the population size is known was utilized.
With the known university population size of 15,000 students,
a representative sample should include a minimum of 375 stu-
dents. To be on the safe side, Charter and colleagues (Charter,
1999; Ponterotto & Charter, 2009) recommend sample sizes of
400 or more in measurement research.
Factor extraction was guided by a theoretical-empirical ap-
proach (Dawis, 1987) where theory guided interpretation of fac-
tors and empirical methods identified robust factors and strong
items. Theoretically, extracted factors should be consistent
with the model of multicultural personality (Ponterotto, 2010a;
Ponterotto et al., 2006). Both the scree test (Cattell, 1966) and
parallel analysis (O’Connor, 2000) were considered in deter-
mining the number of clearly interpretable factors. Although
parallel analysis is often an accurate estimate of the number of
interpretable factors, the procedure can overestimate the num-
ber of factors when the sample size is large (Buja & Eyuboglu,
1992; Ruscio & Roche, 2012; Stevens, 2002).
With regard to minimal component loadings, it was decided
not to limit selected items to very stringent criteria (e.g., .50)
at this early stage of MPI development. It was expected that
factor loadings would be statistically significant at α = .01
(two-tailed test) and practically significant; that is, by sharing
15% of variance with its factor (Stevens, 2002). For our sample
of 400+, factor loadings of .26 are statistically significant and
loadings of .39 are practically significant (as calculated with
Stevens’s guidelines and formulas). It was also decided that all
components should contain a minimum of six items and reach
a coefficient alpha of .70 or higher (Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel,
2007). Finally, a goal was for the EFA solution to reach the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy statistic of
.80 or higher (considered “great or superb”; Field, 2009, p. 659),
as well as a statistically significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity
result.
Factor structure and item loadings. The type of extrac-
tion method used to examine latent factor structures, whether
principal axis factoring (PAF) or principal components analysis
(PCA), is a polemical topic among statisticians. Numerous au-
thors (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1995; Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino,
2006; Stevens, 2002) however, have suggested that there is little
547
difference between factor or component solutions from PAF and
PCA when analyses include more than 30 variables and when
communalities are generally high (i.e., above 0.4), in spite of
differences between each model in terms of shared variance
by factors or components (cf. Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Consequently, we examined both PCA and PAF solutions to de-
termine the latent structure of the data. Both solutions yielded
similar factor structures. Although PAF is traditionally used for
theoretical development, we chose the PCA solution because
the goal of PCA is “to find linear solutions (i.e., principal com-
ponents) that retain as much information about the measured
variables as possible” (Kahn, 2006, p. 688). Given that this is an
initial attempt to define the MPI, the use of PCA can be viewed
as a more conservative approach to test development in that it
includes both common variance and error variance among items
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), which allows for the retention
of data that might otherwise be discarded before subsequent
analyses can evaluate evidence for the validity of the construct.
In other words, it would be difficult to know whether an indi-
vidual item is valuable in terms of adding variance in future
analyses if it was eliminated prematurely.
Given some overlap between factors was expected, oblique
rotation seemed a superior choice. Thus, the factor solution for
our data set was the PCA with the oblimin rotation and Kaiser
normalization. Thirty factors reached eigenvalues above unity,
the scree test indicated 6 or 7 factors, and the parallel analy-
sis indicated 11 factors. We subsequently forced and examined
oblimin rotations specifying 6 through 11 factors.
The most interpretable solution was the six-factor PCA,
which retained 66 items and accounted for 35.2% of the vari-
ance. Component 1 (11 items; eigenvalue = 15.35) explained
13.3% of the common variance and included a majority of the
items focusing on racial and ethnic identity. Component 2 (14
items; eigenvalue = 7.87; 6.9% variance) included the psycho-
logical health items; Component 3 (15 items; eigenvalue = 6.71;
5.7% variance) included the social justice and activism items;
Component 4 (10 items; eigenvalue = 3.66; 3.2% variance) in-
cluded the spirituality and connectedness items; Component 5
(8 items; eigenvalue = 3.53; 3.1% variance) combined items
from the humor cluster and from the expanded gender role and
sexual orientation network clusters; and Component 6 (8 items;
eigenvalue = 3.27; 2.9% variance) included the culturally di-
verse friendship items. Except for Component 5, which inter-
mixed items from multiple constructs, the component matrix
was theoretically consistent with the multicultural personality
model.
After close examination of Component 5, it was decided
to break the component into two separate factors, one deal-
ing with humor, and the other dealing with opposite-gender
and sexual orientation connections. Humor is an integral part
of multicultural interactions in that it often requires an abil-
ity to view situations from different perspectives, and that an
ability to laugh at one’s self allows one to critique one’s own ac-
tions, both skills considered crucial in multicultural competency
(Allport, 1979; Ponterotto et al., 2006). Further, openness and
meaningful connections with members of the opposite gender
and sexual orientation are salient to higher levels of multicul-
tural personality development (Ponterotto, 2010a). Items were
added to each cluster to bring each up to at least six items (the
added items were among the original 115 MPI items but had not
reached a sufficient loading originally). Given the early stage
 548
of the research it was important to develop potentially robust
factors with sufficient numbers of items that could maintain in-
ternal consistency over subsequent samplings (see Ponterotto &
Ruckdeschel, 2007).
In this case the authors used theoretical judgment to modify
the empirical output of the factor model. The PCA was then
rerun on the final pool of 70 items, and all loaded clearly on
their respective assigned components. Total variance accounted
for in the revised model was 46.83%. Subscale 1 included 11
items (eigenvalue = 10.58; 15.11% variance) and included all
racial and ethnic identity items (sample item: “I have given
considerable thought to what it means to be part of my racial
group(s)”); Subscale 2 included 15 items (eigenvalue = 6.34;
9.07% variance) focusing on social justice and activism (“I have
verbally confronted a close family member or friend who has
made racist comments or who has shared a racist joke”); Sub-
scale 3 included 14 items (eigenvalue = 5.22; 7.45% variance)
that all focused on psychological health (“During my life I have
experienced a number of serious bouts of depression” [reverse-
scored]); Subscale 4 included 11 items (eigenvalue = 3.04;
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
4.34% variance) all focusing on connectedness and spirituality
(“In times of stress I rely on my sense of spirituality as a cop-
ing mechanism”); Subscale 5 included six items (eigenvalue =
2.87; 4.10% variance) focusing on humor (“It is easy for me to
laugh at myself if I do something silly or stupid”); Subscale 6
included seven items (eigenvalue = 2.67; 3.81% variance) fo-
cusing on opposite-gender and sexual orientation connections
(“Friends of my opposite gender consider me a helpful person
to talk with when they are upset or under stress”); and Subscale
7 included six items (eigenvalue = 2.06; 2.95% variance) all
focusing on culturally diverse friendships (“Most of my close
friends are from my own religious group” [reverse-scored]). The
PCA pattern coefficients are presented in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes subscale central tendency, variance, inter-
nal consistency, subscale intercorrelations, and factor-analysis-
derived component intercorrelations. Coefficient alphas for the
seven MPI subscales ranged from .70 to .89. We examined each
coefficient alpha magnitude against the classical test theory-
derived “Reliability Matrix for Estimating the Adequacy of In-
ternal Consistency Coefficients” (Ponterotto & Charter, 2009;
Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007) for research measures in sam-
ples of convenience. Using this reliability matrix, six of the
seven MPI factors reached alpha ratings of “fair” to “good.”
MPI subscales intercorrelated minimally, ranging from
.01 (Racial/Ethnic Identity Development with Opposite Gen-
der/Sexual Orientation Connection) to .44 (Racial/Ethnic Iden-
tity Development with Connectedness and Spirituality). The
mean MPI scale intercorrelation was .17 (median = .16; see
Table 2 above the diagonal), and the factor-analysis-derived
components intercorrelation mean was even lower at .10 (me-
dian = .07). Thus, as expected, the seven MPI factors correlated
only modestly with one another.
Discussion
Study 1 involved item development, content validation, fac-
tor structure assessment, and reliability estimates. A 70-item,
seven-factor model of the multicultural personality was gener-
ated and appeared consistent with Ponterotto’s (2010a) theo-
retical formulation. Although initial items were written in 10
somewhat overlapping conceptual models, only seven factors
PONTEROTTO ET AL.
emerged as robust and independent traits. This finding is not
surprising as there is considerable overlap among the models.
For example, it is understandable that Allport’s (1979) tolerant
personality would relate to higher stages of racial identity devel-
opment (e.g., Helms’s [1990] Internalization stage). The find-
ings reported here indicated that the seven MPI factors had sat-
isfactory internal consistency. Consistent with theory, the seven
factors were only minimally intercorrelated, supporting the in-
dependent value of these separate factors. As a single-campus
study, these findings were preliminary. The goal of Study 2 was
to administer the 70-item MPI to a broader and larger sample to
test convergent validity and confirm the structural model.
STUDY 2: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS,
CONVERGENT VALIDITY, AND RELIABILITY PURPOSE
The purpose of Study 2 was to assess the construct validity
of the 70-item, seven-factor MPI with a larger and more di-
verse college sample than what was gathered in Study 1. More
specifically, this study (a) assessed the goodness-of-fit of the
seven-factor model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
procedures; (b) examined score convergent validity through cor-
relations with theoretically related measures; (c) examined the
incremental validity of the MPI factor scores in predicting vari-
ance in salient criterion variables above and beyond the variance
accounted for by a broad measure of personality (the Big Five);
and (d) assessed score internal consistency across the seven MPI
factors.
Participants
Five-hundred and eighty-nine participants completed ques-
tionnaire packets. Of this number, 576 were complete and us-
able. Participants were enrolled in one of three universities lo-
cated in the Northeast region of the United States: 34% attended
a private, religiously affiliated institution in a large metropoli-
tan area (total enrollment = 15,000), 34% attended a public
institution located in a large metropolitan area (total enrollment
= 12,000), and 33% attended a public institution located in a
small town (total enrollment = 8,000). Participants ranged in
age from 17 to 77 years old, with a mean of 25.6 (SD = 9.1). The
sample was predominantly female (69%) and racially diverse.
Forty-eight percent of participants identified as White, 14% as
Hispanic-White, 14% as Black, 9% as Asian American/Pacific
Islander, 7% as biracial or multiracial, 5% as Hispanic-Black,
1% as Native American, and 2% did not identify their race. The
sample represented a diverse array of educational status, with
12% identifying as freshman, 14% as sophomores, 12% as ju-
niors, 15% as seniors, 42% as master’s students, 3% as doctoral
students, and 1% as other graduate and professional degrees. In
terms of religious affiliation, 41% identified as Catholic, 10%
identified as agnostic, 8% identified as Protestant, 6% identified
as Jewish, 4% identified as Muslim, 2% identified as Buddhist,
1% identified as Hindu, 1% identified as Mormon, and 26%
indicated that they belonged to a religious affiliation not listed.
Instruments
In addition to the 70-item MPI described in Study 1, this study
incorporated the following eight self-report measures.
Cognitive Flexibility Scale. The Cognitive Flexibility
Scale (CFS; Martin & Rubin, 1995) is a 12-item, 6-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY 549

TABLE 1.—Pattern coefficient matrix from the principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation, mean, standard deviation, skewness, and communality
for the Multicultural Personality Inventory.

Factor
Item RID SJA PH CS Hum OGC CDF M SD Skew Comm

114 .79 −.03 .05 .02 .05 −.06 .11 3.67 1.13 −.60 .677
45 .77 −.18 −.02 .00 .04 .07 −.04 3.51 1.22 −.43 .597
43 .73 .12 −.01 .04 −.10 −.13 −.06 3.56 1.18 −.52 .618
54 .71 −.03 .14 .02 .05 .07 .07 3.41 1.15 −.35 .574
22 .71 .09 .06 −.03 −.03 .03 −.01 3.71 1.10 −.67 .530
89 .70 .14 .08 −.09 −.05 .01 .07 3.67 1.05 −.68 .525
72 .68 .15 −.01 .09 −.11 −.06 −.03 3.57 1.19 −.51 .589
74 .66 .07 .13 .01 −.04 −.07 .16 3.86 .99 −.97 .551
40 .63 −.04 .07 .07 .08 .10 −.04 3.13 1.09 −.23 .451
17 .57 .08 .11 .02 −.03 .02 .14 4.04 .92 −1.01 .412
31 .48 −.02 −.12 −.03 .04 −.00 −.24 2.59 1.65 .47 .268
39 .03 .73 .01 −.04 .04 −.07 −.09 3.53 1.33 −.57 .535
98 −.09 .72 −.04 −.08 .14 .16 .01 3.92 1.01 −.95 .570
95 .10 .68 −.03 .05 −.02 −.21 −.12 3.69 1.22 −.80 .519
99 −.07 .67 .09 .01 .13 .28 .10 4.30 .79 −1.36 .566
106 .08 .63 .01 .07 −.14 −.08 −.06 3.87 .95 −.67 .474
28 .05 .60 −.04 .03 −.05 −.21 −.17 3.31 1.32 −.34 .432
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

104 .02 .59 .00 .00 −.07 −.05 .05 4.01 .93 −.92 .346
90 −.25 .57 .09 −.19 .12 .40 .08 4.35 .87 −1.72 .620
67 .18 .54 −.15 −.04 −.05 −.08 .00 3.95 .92 −.72 .343
79 −.12 .51 −.01 −.17 .12 .43 .10 4.09 .99 −1.22 .514
87 .18 .48 .02 .28 −.13 −.11 .01 3.73 1.04 −.55 .460
85 .05 .41 .11 .19 −.17 .00 −.03 4.27 .65 .81 .326
37 .02 .40 −.08 .18 −.19 .00 −.06 4.49 .63 −.98 .281
32 .01 .40 .08 .13 −.07 .09 −.10 4.29 .70 −1.03 .265
71 .09 .30 .07 .19 −.23 .19 .07 4.54 .59 −1.31 .340
108 .03 −.07 .80 −.12 .01 −.02 −.07 3.99 1.02 −.75 .628
47 .06 −.00 .78 .07 −.04 −.12 .05 3.81 .93 −.78 .670
55 .14 −.06 .76 .08 −.06 .04 .13 3.94 .87 −.88 .708
42 .05 .07 .75 −.03 .02 .02 .02 4.03 .95 −.93 .573
62 .08 .03 .73 .07 −.07 −.06 .07 4.10 .80 −.84 .621
100 −.04 −.04 .69 −.04 −.01 −.05 −.06 4.00 .99 −.81 .458
96 .07 −.07 .68 −.20 .12 −.11 −.04 3.58 1.26 −.51 .489
82 .01 .05 .62 .09 −.22 .01 .11 4.19 .77 −1.23 .543
65 .01 −.06 .55 −.18 .18 −.10 −.16 3.62 1.30 −.59 .348
56 −.06 .05 .54 .35 −.12 .00 .03 4.18 .82 −1.24 .493
76 .04 −.04 .50 .04 −.06 .15 .15 3.88 .92 −.85 .337
27 −.05 .14 .45 .18 −.06 .08 −.13 3.73 .98 −.73 .325
38 .04 .02 .40 .08 −.01 .11 −.12 3.87 .96 −.80 .226
103 .00 .04 .36 .21 −.20 .10 .07 3.96 .97 −.87 .315
48 −.19 .08 −.05 .79 .10 .04 −.05 3.08 1.23 −.18 .585
109 −.16 .21 −.07 .79 .08 −.02 .01 3.12 1.29 −.21 .629
57 −.00 .13 −.02 .75 −.08 −.15 −.07 3.62 1.13 −.58 .618
19 .08 −.17 .03 .68 −.10 −.04 .03 3.40 1.24 −.44 .528
23 .12 −.12 −.03 .66 −.02 −.08 −.02 3.21 1.36 −.21 .485
26 .26 .06 .02 .51 .31 .18 .05 2.32 1.15 .58 .508
61 .05 −.02 .11 .50 −.22 .04 .03 4.04 .81 −.89 .384
6 .29 −.02 −.05 .47 .34 .26 .00 2.76 1.22 .165 .515
94 .23 −.00 .05 .45 .25 .19 .02 3.14 1.30 −.12 .399
115 .03 −.03 .07 .45 .08 −.02 −.02 2.65 1.38 .26 .217
21 .29 .01 .04 .43 .04 .03 −.06 3.22 1.20 −.27 .363
60 −.04 .02 .10 −.03 −.73 .09 −.04 4.45 .66 −1.05 .593
44 −.03 .05 .17 −.03 −.68 .09 .02 4.33 .77 −1.11 .561
1 −.02 −.03 .15 −.03 −.63 −.06 .00 4.37 .59 −.46 .440
36 .06 −.01 −.11 −.04 −.53 .08 −.10 4.16 .85 −1.22 .295
91 .09 .18 −.04 −.11 −.44 .13 .13 4.75 .48 −1.85 .300
11 −.01 .07 .12 −.05 −.42 .23 −.12 4.33 .79 −1.33 .319
59 .13 −.10 .02 .04 −.24 .68 −.01 3.99 .99 −.89 .563
24 .06 −.15 .10 .00 −.26 .66 −.06 4.11 1.10 −1.21 .537
73 −.05 −.21 −.07 .01 −.12 .53 −.18 2.43 1.18 .51 .353
86 .07 .12 .08 .12 −.26 .47 .10 4.26 .78 −1.03 .435
93 −.00 .27 −.09 −.10 .12 .45 −.25 2.71 1.35 .39 .424
5 −.14 .33 .11 −.12 .18 .41 −.26 3.38 1.35 −.28 .482
63 .05 .06 −.04 .20 −.22 .36 .14 4.31 .72 −1.13 .295
78 −.06 −.08 .01 .09 −.01 −.05 −.81 2.40 1.23 .68 .643
110 −.17 .00 .06 .02 −.04 −.05 −.71 2.75 1.25 .21 .531
12 .19 .05 .04 .06 −.08 −.07 −.69 3.87 1.11 −.75 .553
14 .26 .14 −.01 .02 −.05 .05 −.64 4.03 1.02 −.96 .524
3 −.18 .16 .03 −.05 −.07 .11 −.46 3.20 1.31 −.13 .337
81 −.10 .04 .00 −.03 .18 .28 −.32 1.85 .89 1.25 .252

Note. Factor loadings > .31 are shown in bold. RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity Development; SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness
and Spirituality; Hum = Humor; OGC = Opposite Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; CDF = Culturally Diverse Friendships; Comm = Communality
 550 PONTEROTTO ET AL.

TABLE 2.—Multicultural Personality Inventory (MPI) subscale means, standard deviations, skewness, coefficient alpha, coefficient alpha 95% confidence interval,
coefficient alpha qualitative rating, and subscale intercorrelations.

Subscale Correlation Matrix (Above Diagonal)

Component Correlation Matrix (Below Diagonal)

MPI Subscales # Items M SD Skew α [95% CI] α Inter. RID SJA PH CS HUM OGC CDF

RID 11 3.52 .80 −.46 .89 [.87, .91] Good 1 .16∗∗ .27∗∗ .44∗∗ .10∗ .01 −.05
SJA 15 4.02 .56 −.58 .86 [.84, .88] Moderate −.09 1 .08 .20∗∗ .24∗∗ .36∗∗ .25∗
PH 14 3.92 .61 −.68 .88 [.86, .90] Moderate .07 −.15 1 .19∗∗ .27∗∗ .11∗ .00
CS 11 3.14 .76 −.18 .86 [.84, .88] Good .10 .02 −.07 1 .05 .09 .03
Hum 6 4.40 .47 −.83 .70 [.66, .74] Fair .19 −.25 .05 .07 1 .29∗∗ .08
OGC 7 3.60 .66 −.24 .70 [.66, .74] Poor .28 −.07 .20 .06 .14 1 .32∗∗
CDF 6 3.01 .75 −.14 .74 [.70, .78] Fair .04 .03 −.07 .07 −.03 −.01 1

Note. RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity Development; SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and Spirituality; Hum = Humor; OGC
= Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; CDF = Culturally Diverse Friendships; α Interpretation is based on classical test theory developed “Reliability Matrix for Estimating
the Adequacy of Coefficient Alpha (Ponterotto & Charter, 2009; Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007); Component correlation matrix was based on principal component extraction method
and oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization; Subscale correlation matrix uses retained items only.
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

agree) that includes eight positively worded items (e.g., “I can sample (Alexopoulos & Asimakopoulou, 2009). Convergent and
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

find workable solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems”),
and four negatively worded items (e.g., “I seldom have choices
to choose from when deciding how to behave”). The CFS yields
a total score that can range from 12 to 72, with higher scores
indicating higher self-rated cognitive flexibility. In the CFS,
cognitive flexibility is defined as an awareness that in any given
situation there are multiple alternatives, by a willingness to be
flexible and adapt to a given situation, and by a sense of self-
efficacy in being flexible. Over a number of large sample stud-
ies, the internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of CFS
scores has remained satisfactory, ranging between .72 and .83.
Furthermore, CFS scores correlated significantly and positively
with measures of intellectual flexibility, self-compassion, com-
munication competence, and tolerance for disagreement; and
they correlated negatively and significantly with measures of
dogmatism, verbal aggression, and Machiavellianism (Martin
& Anderson, 1998; Martin, Anderson, & Thweatt, 1998; Mar-
tin & Rubin, 1995; Martin, Staggers, & Anderson, 2011).
New General Self-Efficacy Scale. The New General Self-
Efficacy Scale (NGSE; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001) scale is
an 8-item, 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items are positively worded
(e.g., “I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which
I set my mind”). Total score range is 8 to 40, with high scores
indicating higher self-assessed general self-efficacy. General
self-efficacy is conceptualized as a trait-like personality con-
struct rather than as a task-specific efficacy (e.g., math self-
efficacy), and the construct refers to belief in one’s ability to ac-
cess the motivation, cognitive resources, and specific behavioral
action needed to meet various situational demands as they arise
(Chen et al., 2001). NGSE scores have been internally consistent
across multiple American samples, ranging from .85 to .90, and
test–retest stability coefficients across multiple samples have
averaged .73 for shorter-term intervals (2–3 weeks), and .64 for
moderate-length intervals (7–10 weeks; Chen et al., 2001). CFA
of a Greek translation of the NGSE scale administered to Greek
children supported the single-factor structure (Goodness-of-Fit
Index [GFI] = .98, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .94, and root
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .04), although
coefficient alphas and stability coefficients were lower with this
discriminant validity of NGSE scores was established through
significant and theoretically expected correlations to measures
of leadership, motivation, personal self-efficacy, and self-esteem
(Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004).
Big Five Inventory. The Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet-
Martı́nez & John, 1998; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008) is a 44-item Likert-type rating scale
with a scoring range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Sixteen BFI items are negatively worded and distributed
throughout the five factors of the inventory. The BFI includes
the factors (subscales) of Extraversion (8 items; sample item:
“Is talkative”), Agreeableness (9 items; sample item: “Tends
to find fault with others” [reverse-scored]), Conscientiousness
(9 items; “Is a reliable worker”), Neuroticism (8 items; sam-
ple item: “Is relaxed, handles stress well” [reverse-scored]),
and Openness (10 items; sample item: “Is curious about many
different things”). Higher scores indicate a higher level of the
self-reported trait. The BFI is a widely used measure of the Big
Five, and its subscales correlated highly with other BFI mea-
sures (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992), with rs between .75 and .80.
Coefficient alphas across the BFI scales are consistently high,
ranging from .75 to .90, and 3-month test–retest stability coef-
ficients range from .80 to .90. Extensive factor-analytic support
and criterion-related validity has been established for the BFI
subscales (see reviews in Benet-Martı́nez & John, 1998; Fossati,
Borroni, Marchione, & Maffei, 2011; John & Srivastava, 1999).
Universality-Diversity Scale–Short Form. The
Universality-Diversity Scale–Short Form (UDO–SF; Fuertes,
Miville, Mohr, Sedlacek, & Gretchen, 2000; Miville et al.,
1999) represents “an attitude toward all other persons that is
inclusive yet differentiating in that similarities and differences
are both recognized and accepted; the shared experience of
being human results in a sense of connectedness with people
and is associated with a plurality of diversity of interaction with
others” (Miville et al., 1999, p. 292). The UDO–SF includes
three subscales that assess the three components of UDO theory:
Diversity of Contact (behavioral component, five items; sample
item: “I would like to join an organization that emphasizes
getting to know people from different countries”), Relativistic
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Appreciation (cognitive component, five items; sample item:
“Persons with disabilities can teach me things I could not
learn elsewhere”), and Comfort with Differences (emotional
component, five items; sample item: “It’s really hard for me
to feel close to a person from another race” [reverse-scored]).
Both EFA and CFA supported the three-factor model of UDO.
Across seven studies, median coefficient alphas ranged from
.70 to .78 across the three subscales. A number of studies have
confirmed UDO–SF subscale criterion and incremental validity
in predicting multicultural variables (tolerance, racism, racial
identity level), psychological health variables, and academic
success variables (an integrative review and critique of UDO
studies is provided in Ponterotto, 2008).
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–Student version. The
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–Student version (UWES–S;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) is a 9-item Likert-type scale with
score options ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always or every say).
The UWES–S yields a total score of 0 to 54, with higher scores
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
indicating more positive engagement and satisfaction with aca-
demic studies. CFA goodness-of-fit index for the unidimen-
sional model of UWES–S is GFI = .93, with a coefficient alpha
of .84. A sample item is as follows: “I am immersed in my
studies.”
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item, 4-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree) that is a unidimensional measure of global self-
esteem. Scores range from 10 to 40 with high scores indicative
of high levels of global self-esteem. One-half of the items are
negatively worded; a sample item is: “I feel I do not have much
to be proud of” (reverse-scored). The RSES is a widely used
measure of self-esteem, has been translated into 28 languages
(Schmitt & Allik, 2005), and has evidence of good internal
consistency (in the .70s to .80s) and test–retest reliability (in
the .80s; Hatcher & Hall, 2009; Zeigler-Hill, Besser, & King,
2011). Numerous studies support the unidimensional nature of
the RSES and multiple studies supported score convergent and
criterion validity (Blaskovich & Tomaka, 1991; Corwyn, 2000;
Sinclair et al., 2010).
Satisfaction With Life Scale. The Satisfaction With Life
Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a
brief, five-item measure of general life satisfaction. All items
are positively worded and placed on a 7-point Likert-type rating
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The SWLS yields a single total score that can range from 5 to
35, with higher scores representing higher self-rated life satis-
faction. A sample item is: “In most ways my life is close to my
ideal.” Stability coefficients for the SWLS over a 2-month inter-
val are in the .80 range, and the mean coefficient alpha across 62
studies (yielding 76 reported internal consistency coefficients)
is .78 (Vassar, 2008). As expected, SWLS correlated negatively
with depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, and posi-
tively with self-esteem and positive affect, among other expected
relationships. Furthermore, multiple factor-analytic studies sup-
port the unidimensional nature of the underlying SWLS con-
struct (see reviews in Diener et al., 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993;
Vassar, 2008).
551
Crowne–Marlowe Scale of Social Desirability. The
Crowne–Marlowe Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is a 33-
item, true–false self-report measure that assesses “behaviors
which are culturally sanctioned and approved but which are im-
probable of occurrence” (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, p. 350).
In the development study the authors reported an internal con-
sistency coefficient (KR–20) of .88, and a 1-month test–retest
stability coefficient of .89. Construct validity was supported in
expected correlations with various Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory scales (higher for validity scales and lower for
pathology scales). In a reliability generalizability study of the
instrument incorporating 123 internal consistency assessments,
Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) calculated a mean internal
consistency coefficient of .73. Although there is some debate
whether the Crowne–Marlowe items are best represented by a
single- or a two-factor structure, Ventimiglia and MacDonald
(2012) found the one-factor model (used in this study) to be a
reasonable fit to the data (GFI = .91, RMSEA = .035).
Procedure
The procedures described in Study 1 were replicated across
three colleges and universities in a Northeastern U.S. state.
The questionnaire packets included a demographic survey, the
70-item MPI, and the instruments just described. Instrument
order was counterbalanced to control for order effects. The av-
erage completion time for packets was 35 minutes. Data were
collected through class visitation, and through data collection
sites outside popular student gathering areas (e.g., cafeteria, li-
brary). Students were debriefed individually or in groups (for
the class visitations), and each received $3 cash and a three-page
encyclopedia entry on multicultural personality (i.e., Ponterotto,
2006) after completion of the study.
Results
A CFA (Byrne, 2010) was used to assess the goodness-of-
fit of the proposed seven-factor MPI model with the sample
of 576 college and university students from three campuses.
In conducting and reporting our CFA findings we generally
followed the recommendations of Jackson, Gillaspy, and Purc-
Stephenson (2009) and Worthington and Whittaker (2006). We
selected the χ 2/df ratio (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988), the
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1984), and the RMSEA (Steiger & Lind, 1980) as measures
of absolute fit indexes; the Normed Fit Index (NFI; Bentler &
Bonnett, 1980), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis,
1973), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) as
measures of incremental fit indexes; and Akaike’s Information
Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) as a measure of a predictive fit
index (see classification in Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).
There is some debate over criteria for a “good fit to the data.”
Generally speaking, researchers look to the incremental fit in-
dexes to be as high as possible, and the RMSEA and AIC to be
as low as possible. A recent major contribution in regard to inter-
preting CFA and other structural equation modeling results was
presented by Jackson et al. (2009), who content analyzed CFA
results in 194 peer-reviewed studies reporting on 1,409 factor
models. These authors reported the mean fit indexes across the
studies as follows: χ 2/df ratio = 3.034, RMSEA = 0.062, AGFI
= .862, NFI = .912, TLI = .925, CFI = .933, AIC = 881.582.
For this study, a reasonable fit to the data would reach the mean
 552 PONTEROTTO ET AL.

TABLE 3.—Multicultural Personality Inventory confirmatory factor analysis fit and error indexes.

χ2 df χ 2/df AGFI NFI TLI CFI RMSEA [90%CI] AIC

Jackson et al. (2009) means 678.759 229 3.034 .862 .912 .925 .933 .062 881.582
———————————- ———– ———- ——– ————– ——- ———– ——— ——————– ———-
7-factor model 9353.114 2,256 4.146 .610 .554 .604 .619 .074 [.072, .076] 9671.114
3-item parcels 904.446 231 3.915 .841 .873 .882 .901 .071 [.066, .076] 1042.446
5-item parcels 330.608 114 2.900 .939 .933 .939 .954 .057 [.050, .065] 444.608

Note. N = 576. AGFI = adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion.

indexes calculated by Jackson et al. (2009) and specified previ-
ously.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the CFA procedures in
this study. The first model tested was the seven-factor model
that included all items on their assigned factors. This model
achieved a poor fit to the data with low incremental fit indexes
(NFI = .554, TLI = .604, CFI = .619), and a high RMSEA
(.074; see Table 3).
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
Orientation Connection and Social Justice and Activism). The
mean intercorrelation among MPI scales was only .21 (median
= .20), supporting the relative independence of the scales and
the construct validity of the seven-factor model.
The correlations between the Big Five broad measures of
personality traits and the seven MPI narrow traits of personality
ranged from a low of .03 (MPI Social Justice and Activism and
BFI Neuroticism and MPI Opposite Gender/Sexual Orientation

With so many items per factor (6–15 in the case of MPI Connection and BFI Conscientiousness) to a high of –.69 (MPI
factors) and the resultant large number of parameters to be Psychological Health and BFI Neuroticism). The mean inter-
estimated, it is common for such CFAs to evidence a poor correlation across the broad and narrow trait measures was .20
fit (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Kishton & Widaman, 1994; (median = .17), thus supporting the independence of MPI fac-
Rahim & Magner, 1995; Russell, Kahn, Spoth, & Altmaier, tors relative to the broad measures of personality operationalized
1998). To adjust for this limitation, researchers often create by the BFI. The correlations between the MPI factors and the
aggregate items, also known as item parcels, whereby individ- Crowne–Marlowe Scale of Social Desirability were low, rang-
ual items are aggregated to create a smaller number of items ing from .01 to .31. The only significant correlation reaching
before CFA procedures. The appropriateness of item parcel- a medium effect size was with the MPI Psychological Health
ing has been well articulated in the measurement literature, factor (r = .31).
where it has been noted that the procedure does not impact pa- With regard to the relationship between MPI factors and
rameter bias or standard errors of estimated factor correlations the criterion variables of interest, the pattern and magnitudes
(Nasser & Takahashi, 2003; Nasser-Abu Alhija & Wisenbaker, of correlations are generally consistent with multicultural per-
2006). sonality theory (Ponterotto, 2010a). Table 6 presents the cor-
Aggregation of items is achieved by statistically combining relation magnitudes and significance levels for all criterion
higher loading items with lower loading items in each item par- variables. The MPI Racial and Ethnic Identity factor cor-
cel. In all models, the variance of one observed variable was related most highly with the Miville–Guzman Universality-
set to 1.0 for each latent variable. There were no correlated er- Diversity Scale (MGUDS) Diversity of Contact, MGUDS Rel-
rors or cross-loadings; the pattern of fixed and freed parameters ativistic Appreciation, and General Self-Efficacy. MPI Social
followed those implied by the model. Justice and Activism correlated most highly with MGUDS
We next tested an aggregate three-item parcel model (with Diversity of Contact, MGUDS Relativistic Appreciation, and
each factor reduced to between two and five items), and an MGUDS Comfort with Differences. MPI Psychological Health-
aggregate five-item parcel model (with each factor reduced to correlated most strongly with Self-Esteem, Life Satisfac-
between two and three items). As expected the aggregate models tion, General Self-Efficacy, and Cognitive Flexibility. MPI
evidenced superior fits relative to the simple structure, with
the five-item parcel model reaching a satisfactory fit across all
parameters tested. Specifically, in this model, all fit indexes TABLE 4.—Covariance matrix of the 5-item parcel Multicultural Personality
surpassed the set criteria of matching or improving on the mean Inventory confirmatory factor analysis (variances of each factor are on the
fit indexes identified in Jackson et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis. The diagonal).
covariance matrix for the five-item parcel model is illustrated in
RID SJA PH CS HUM OGC CDF
Table 4.
Table 5 summarizes the descriptive statistics and internal con- RID .505
sistency coefficients across the seven MPI scales as well as for SJA .097 .348
the companion measures used in Study 2. Across the MPI scales, PH .114 .018 .339
coefficient alphas ranged from a low of .65 for Opposite Gen- CS .283 .079 .104 .476
HUM .094 .103 .056 .056 .213
der/Sexual Orientation Connection to a high of .89 for Psycho- OGC .057 .228 .057 .046 .128 .386
logical Health (see Table 5). The correlation matrix for the MPI CDF .036 .069 .014 .002 .028 .108 .002
factors and companion measures is presented in Table 6. MPI
factor intercorrelations with one another ranged from a low Note. RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity Development; SJA = Social Justice and Ac-
tivism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and Spirituality; Hum = Hu-
of .04 (between Psychological Health and Social Justice and mor, OGC = Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; CDF = Culturally Diverse
Activism) to a high of .51 (between Opposite Gender/Sexual Friendships.
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY 553

TABLE 5.—Mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and coefficient alpha values on MPI subscales, BFI subscales, CMS, MGUDS subscales, CFS, GSES,
UWES, RSES, and the LSS.

Scale M SD Skewness Kurtosis Coeffcient α α 95% CI α Rating

MPI
RID 3.63 .76 −.46 .05 .87 [.86, .88] Good
SJA 3.94 .58 −.45 .00 .85 [.84, .86] Moderate
PH 3.90 .62 −.43 −.14 .88 [.87, .89] Good
CS 3.15 .82 −.27 −.42 .87 [.86, .88] Good
HUM 4.34 .57 −1.31 2.90 .78 [.76, .80] Moderate
OGC 3.64 .63 −.31 .01 .68 [.65, .71] Poor
CDF 3.18 .76 .07 −.46 .72 [.69, .74] Fair
BFI
Extra 3.46 .78 −.20 −.35 .83 [.81, .84] Moderate
Agree 3.91 .61 −.48 −.05 .76 [.74, .78] Fair
Consc 3.67 .67 −.23 −.27 .80 [.78, .82] Moderate
Neuro 2.89 .79 −.14 −.58 .83 [.81, .84] Moderate
Open 3.83 .60 −.23 −.38 .78 [.76, .80] Fair
CMS 15.70 5.58 .18 −.38 .80 [.78, .82] Fair
MGUDS
DIV 4.37 .96 −.48 −.16 .78 [.76, .80] Moderate
REL 4.79 .72 −.81 1.45 .73 [.71, .75] Fair
COM 4.95 .76 −.92 .73 .73 [.71, .75] Fair
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

CFS 4.75 .55 −.53 .73 .74 [.72, .76] Poor

GSES 4.13 .58 −.53 .90 .90 [.89, .91] Excellent
UWES 3.67 1.11 −.31 .09 .91 [.90, .92] Excellent
RSES 3.02 .43 −.28 −.31 .76 [.74, .78] Fair
LSS 4.83 1.22 −.71 .23 .83 [.81, .84] Good

Note. N = 576. MPI = Multicultural Personality Inventory; BFI = Big Five Inventory; CMS = Crowne–Marlowe Scale of Social Desirability; MGUDS = Miville-Guzman
Universality-Diversity Scale; CFS = Cognitive Flexibility Scale; GSES = General Self-Efficacy Scale; UWES = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale; LSS = Life Satisfaction Scale; RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity; SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and Spirituality; HUM =
Humor; OGC = Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; CDF = Culturally Diverse Friendships; Extra = Extraversion; Agree = Agreeableness; Consc = Conscientiousness;
Neuro = Neuroticism; Open = Openness; DIV = Diversity of Contact; REL = Relativistic Appreciation; COM = Comfort with Differences.

Connectedness and Spirituality correlated most notably with
MGUDS Diversity of Contact, the UWES, and General Self-
Efficacy. The MPI Humor factor correlated most highly with
Cognitive Flexibility, General Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem.
MPI Opposite Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection corre-
lated most strongly with MGUDS Comfort with Differences,
MGUDS Diversity of Contact, and Cognitive Flexibility. Fi-
nally, MPI Culturally Diverse Friendships correlated most
highly with MGUDS Comfort with Differences and MGUDS
Diversity of Contact. A review of the magnitudes of correlation

TABLE 6.—Correlation matrix of MPI subscales with the BFI subscales, CMS, MGUDS and its subscales, CFS, GSES, UWES, RSES, and LSS.

RID SJA PH CS HUM OGC CDF

SJA .22∗∗
PH .24∗∗ .04
CS .46∗∗ .19∗∗ .20∗∗
HUM .24∗∗ .31∗∗ .23∗∗ .14∗∗
OGC .12∗∗ .51∗∗ .13∗∗ .10∗ .34∗∗
CDF .05 .23∗∗ .06 −.05 .10∗ .39∗∗
Extraversion .20∗∗ .20∗∗ .29∗∗ .18∗∗ .36∗∗ .25∗∗ .07
Agreeableness .17∗∗ .15∗∗ .39∗∗ .30∗∗ .12∗∗ .12∗∗ .08
Conscientiousness .16∗∗ .04 .45∗∗ .21∗∗ .06 .03 .05
Neuroticism −.18∗∗ .03 −.69∗∗ −.14∗∗ −.09∗ −.08∗ −.06
Openness .20∗∗ .34∗∗ .16∗∗ .24∗∗ .35∗∗ .32∗∗ .16∗∗
CMS .20∗∗ .01 .31∗∗ .18∗∗ −.01 .07 .12∗∗
DIVCON .42∗∗ .43∗∗ .13∗∗ .37∗∗ .17∗∗ .29∗∗ .31∗∗
RELAPP .27∗∗ .40∗∗ .03 .20∗∗ .13∗∗ .19∗∗ .05
COMDIF .04 .28∗∗ .20∗∗ −.02 .21∗∗ .31∗∗ .41∗∗
CFS .19∗∗ .23∗∗ .47∗∗ .16∗∗ .38∗∗ .26∗∗ .12∗∗
GSES .26∗∗ .08∗ .49∗∗ .24∗∗ .26∗∗ .16∗∗ .06
UWES .22∗∗ .12∗∗ .26∗∗ .31∗∗ .02 .07 .08
RSES .22∗∗ .06 .71∗∗ .22∗∗ .24∗∗ .12∗∗ .01
LSS .04 .05 .49∗∗ .11∗∗ .13∗∗ .17∗∗ .01

Note. N = 576. MPI = Multicultural Personality Inventory; BFI = Big Five Inventory; CMS = Crowne–Marlowe Scale of Social Desirability; MGUDS = Miville-Guzman
Universality-Diversity Scale; CFS = Cognitive Flexibility Scale; GSES = General Self-Efficacy Scale; UWES = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale; LSS = Life Satisfaction Scale; RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity; SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and Spirituality; HUM =
Humor; OGC = Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; DIVCON = Diversity of Contact; RELAPP = Relativistic Appreciation; COMDIF = Comfort with Differences.
∗
p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01.
 554 PONTEROTTO ET AL.

TABLE 7.—Hierarchical multiple regression predicting CFS, GSES, LSS, RSES, DIVCON, RELAPP, COMDIF, and UWES from gender, the Big Five personality
variables, and the Multicultural Personality Inventory–70 subscales.

Outcome Variables
CFS GSES LSS RSES
Predictor R2 β R2 β R2 β R2 β

Step 1 .040∗∗∗ .065∗∗∗ .040∗∗∗ .082∗∗∗

Gender .036 −.024 −.033 .016
Social desirability −.016 .039 .097 .042
Step 2 .326∗∗∗ .260∗∗∗ .144∗∗∗ .334∗∗∗
Extraversion .114 .102 .169∗∗∗ .119∗∗∗
Agreeableness .046 −.025 −.050 −.002
Conscientiousness .168∗∗∗ .341∗∗∗ .011 .093
Neuroticism −.046 .056 −.004 −.136∗∗∗
Openness .286∗∗∗ .047 −.103 −.105
Step 3 .060∗∗∗ .072∗∗∗ .115∗∗∗ .146∗∗∗
RID −.011 .075 −.123 −.003
SJA .037 −.063 .009 .004
PH .248∗∗∗ .282∗∗∗ .445∗∗∗ .518∗∗∗
CS −.057 .045 .054 .060
HUM .145∗∗∗ .108 −.007 .084
OGC .031 .077 .144∗∗∗ .024
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

CDF −.004 −.016 −.068 −.045

Total R2 .426∗∗∗ .397∗∗∗ .299∗∗∗ .562∗∗∗
N 576 576 576 576
Outcome Variables
DIVCON RELAPP COMDIFF UWES
Predictor R2 β R2 β R2 β R2 β

Step 1 .065∗∗∗ .009 .059∗∗∗ .105∗∗∗

Gender .028 −.018 .066 −.002
Social Desirability .056 −.045 .056 .174∗∗∗
Step 2 .147∗∗∗ .101∗∗∗ .082∗∗∗ .109∗∗∗
Extraversion .090 −.033 −.031 .082
Agreeableness .107 .084 .161∗∗∗ −.025
Conscientiousness .040 .070 .063 .243∗∗∗
Neuroticism .046 .089 −.089 .051
Openness .150∗∗∗ .180∗∗∗ .087 .142∗∗∗
Step 3 .209∗∗∗ .126∗∗∗ .167∗∗∗ .044∗∗∗
RID .250∗∗∗ .179∗∗∗ −.050 .035
SJA .239∗∗∗ .345∗∗∗ .127 .040
PH −.051 −.016 .017 .073
CS .142∗∗∗ .012 −.126 .174∗∗∗
HUM −.087 −.055 .100 −.118
OGC −.018 −.048 .042 −.025
CDF .219∗∗∗ −.033 .305∗∗∗ .035
Total R2 .421∗∗∗ .236∗∗∗ .308∗∗∗ .258∗∗∗
N 576 576 576 576

Note. CFS = Cognitive Flexibility Scale; GSES = General Self-Efficacy Scale; LSS = Life Satisfaction Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; DIVCON = Diversity of
Contact; RELAPP = Relativistic Appreciation; COMDIFF = Comfort with Differences; UWES = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity. SJA = Social
Justice and Activism. PH = Psychological Health. CS = Connectedness and Spirituality. HUM = Humor. OGC = Opposite Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection. CDF = Culturally
Diverse Friendships.
∗∗∗
p < .001.

coefficients reveals that the majority would be classified as
reaching small to medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1988).
A major theoretical tenet of multicultural personality theory
(Ponterotto, 2010a; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001)
is that the narrow multicultural adaptation traits provide incre-
mental variance (validity) in predicting relationships with salient
criterion variables above and beyond the variance accounted for
by broad measures of personality such as the Big Five. To test
this component of Ponterotto’s (2010a) multicultural personality
theory, hierarchical regression models were executed across the
eight criterion variables of interest. For each regression model
Gender and Social Desirability were entered into Step 1, the Big
Five factors were entered into Step 2, and the seven MPI factors
were entered into Step 3. Table 7 presents a summary of the re-
sults across the hierarchical models. Across the eight hierarchi-
cal regressions, the Step 1 variables accounted for statistically
significant, although negligible amounts of variance in seven
out of eight tests. Variance accounted for ranged from 0.9%
(MGUDS Relativistic Appreciation) to 10.5% for Utrecht Aca-
demic Engagement. However, of the 16 beta weights reported
in Step 1, only -Social Desirability- for the Utrecht Academic
Engagement criterion reached statistical significance.
In Step 2, the Big Five factors added incremental variance
in the criterion measures ranging from 8.2% (MGUDS Com-
fort with Differences) to 33.4% for Self-Esteem. The Big Five
factors of Conscientiousness and Openness were the strongest
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY 555

TABLE 8.—Gender norms (means and standard deviations) for MPI subscales. 7.47, p < .001; Humor, F(4, 564) = 3.38, p < .01; Opposite-
Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection, F(4, 564) = 5.67, p <
Gender
.001; and Culturally Diverse Friendships, F(4, 564) = 11.07, p
Male Female
< .001. Table 9 presents the results of the follow-up planned
MPI Scale M SD M SD
comparisons using the Scheffé test.
RID 3.61 .75 3.64 .77
SJA 3.73∗∗∗ .59 4.03∗∗∗ .55 Discussion
PH 3.95 .62 3.87 .61
CS 3.06 .82 3.19 .82 This study found the seven-factor MPI structure to be a rea-
HUM 4.31 .62 4.35 .55 sonably good fit to a multisite college student sample. Fur-
OGC 3.58 .68 3.67 .61 thermore, the factors retained satisfactory internal consistency
CDF 3.12 .79 3.21 .75 estimates in the new sample. As in Study 1, the seven MPI
Total N 178 398
factors intercorrelated only modestly, supporting the generally
% 30.9 69.1
independent nature of each factor.
Note. MPI = Multicultural Personality Inventory; RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity; With regard to the MPI factor correlations with companion in-
SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and struments, the magnitude and direction of the coefficients were
Spirituality; HUM = Humor; OGC = Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection;
CDF = Culturally Diverse Friendships.
generally consistent with multicultural personality theory pre-
∗∗∗
p < .001. dictions (see Ponterotto, 2010a). MPI factors were fairly inde-
pendent of the Big Five factors and generally free from social de-
predictors across the criterion variables. Finally, in Step 3 of the sirability contamination, save for a modest correlation with the
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014

regression models, the MPI factors added additional, incremen-
tal predictive variance for all eight criterion variables of inter-
est, ranging from 4.4% added variance for Utrecht Academic
Engagement to 20.9% added variance in predicting MGUDS
Diversity Contact. Overall it appears that MPI Psychological
Health was the strongest predictor of the MPI’s theoretical me-
dial and distal criterion variables (Cognitive Flexibility, Gen-
eral Self-Efficacy, Life Satisfaction, and Self-Esteem), and MPI
Racial and Ethnic Identity and Social Justice and Activism and
Culturally Diverse Friendships were the strongest predictors of
theoretically postulated proximal criterion variables (MGUDS
Diversity Contact and MGUDS Relativistic Appreciation).
Finally, Tables 8 and 9, respectively, provide normative cen-
tral tendency and variance data on the MPI scores across gender
and major racial and ethnic categories. T tests conducted across
the seven MPI factors for gender revealed only one statistically
significant comparison: Women (n = 398) score higher than men
(n = 178) on the Social Justice and Activism scale, t(574) =
–5.95, p < .001. One-way analyses of variance across the broad
racial and ethnic categories revealed statistically significant re-
sults for six of the seven MPI factors: Racial/Ethnic Identity,
F(4, 564) = 24.33, p < .001; Psychological Health, F(4, 564)
= 3.70, p < .01; Connectedness and Spirituality, F(4, 564) =
Psychological Health factor. The pattern of MPI factor correla-
tions with the primary criterion variables of interest—universal-
diverse orientation, cognitive flexibility, general self-efficacy,
academic engagement, self-esteem, and life satisfaction—were
in the magnitude and direction predicted by the theory. Further-
more, MPI factors predicted variance in these criterion variables
above and beyond the variance accounted for by gender, social
desirability, and the Big Five variables.
Findings also indicated gender differences on one MPI fac-
tor, Social Justice and Activism, which is consistent with pre-
vious research on social justice variables (e.g., Perez-Gualdron,
2012; Sabbagh, 2005). Furthermore, a few race-based score
differences were also identified. The goal of the gender and
racial and ethnic group comparisons was to begin to develop
some normative data base for MPI factor scores. However, given
the limited sites sampled and the relatively small sample sizes
with the data disaggregated by demographic grouping, it is dif-
ficult to discern any meaningful implications of these data at the
present time.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of this series of studies was to develop a
self-report, Likert-type measure to operationalize Ponterotto’s

TABLE 9.—Race and Hispanic-origin norms (means and standard deviations) for MPI subscales.

Race

Black White Asian Hispanic Other

MPI Scale M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

RID 3.85a .69 3.33 .75 3.90a .64 4.00a .62 3.81a .69
SJA 3.85 .57 3.96 .59 3.90 .60 3.97 .57 4.03 .56
PH 4.04 .61 3.82 .62 3.78 .64 4.01 .55 3.95 .69
CS 3.42a .90 2.97 .81 3.27 .68 3.33a .76 3.15 .85
HUM 4.35 .58 4.39 .53 4.09a .69 4.32 .62 4.44 .54
OGC 3.55 .66 3.65 .62 3.36 .68 3.80b .57 3.79b .68
CDF 3.15 .81 3.02 .73 3.18 .79 3.35a .65 3.72abc .74
Total N 80 277 53 111 44
% 13.9 48.1 9.2 19.3 7.6

Note. MPI = Multicultural Personality Inventory; RID = Racial and Ethnic Identity; SJA = Social Justice and Activism; PH = Psychological Health; CS = Connectedness and
Spirituality; HUM = Humor; OGC = Opposite-Gender/Sexual Orientation Connection; CDF = Culturally Diverse Friendships.
a
Statistically significantly different from White participants per Scheffé test. bStatistically significantly different from Asian participants per Scheffé test. cStatistically significantly
different from Hispanic participants per Scheffé test. cStatistically significantly different from Black participants per Scheffé tests.
 556
(2010a) theory of the multicultural personality. In Study 1, a
large number of items were written and subject to content valid-
ity checks and an exploratory factor analysis. A 70-item, seven-
factor model of the multicultural personality emerged and the
factors were found to be psychometrically robust and internally
consistent. In Study 2, the 70-item MPI was distributed to a
multicampus sample, and the seven-factor model proved to be
a good fit to the new data set. Furthermore, Study 2 demon-
strated that the internal consistency of the seven factors held
up with the new sample and that MPI factors correlated in ex-
pected directions with a variety of criterion variables related
to college student well-being, cultural openness, and academic
engagement.
A central component of multicultural personality theory is
that its defined narrow personality traits can predict variance in
human behavior above and beyond the variance accounted for by
demographic variables of broad-trait conceptions of personality.
Importantly, the MPI factors predicted a significant amount of
score variance above and beyond that accounted for by a broad
measure of personality for all criterion variables of interest. The
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
MPI factor Psychological Health was the most powerful predic-
tor of theoretically specified medial and distal criterion variables
(e.g., self-esteem, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, and cognitive
flexibility), and the MPI factors Racial and Ethnic Identity, So-
cial Justice Activism, and Culturally Diverse Friendships were
the strongest predictors of proximal criterion variables (i.e.,
contact with diversity, comfort with cultural differences, and a
relativistic appreciation of cultural similarities and differences).
Overall the pattern of results across studies is consistent with
multicultural personality theory.
Although initial psychometric data on the MPI are promising,
there exist numerous limitations in this series of studies that need
to be addressed in follow-up research. First, all three studies in
this report relied exclusively on undergraduate and graduate
students. Second, the samples were majority female (73% in
Study 1 and 69% in Study 2), and were enrolled in colleges and
universities located in a liberal region of the Northeast. Clearly,
the MPI needs to be tested with more men and with more diverse
samples throughout North America and internationally. It will
be important to examine whether the seven-factor structure of
the MPI transcends multiple samples and geographic regions.
If follow-up research on the MPI supports the psychometric
properties found in this work, it might be useful to develop a
shorter seven-factor MPI version and to translate the MPI into
other languages. Importantly, the stability of the MPI factors
needs to be assessed over moderate length (e.g., 3- and 6-month)
time periods and across multiple samples.
There exist numerous areas for follow-up research should
further construct validity of the multicultural personality theory
be forthcoming. For one, it would be of value to more closely
examine the overlap and independence among the three ex-
tant theories of the multicultural personality (Ponterotto, 2010a;
Ramirez, 1999b; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). An-
other promising area of research would be to examine the re-
lationship between multicultural effectiveness and competence,
multicultural personality, and cultural intelligence (see Gamst
et al., 2011; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).
In the past few years a number of constructs have been intro-
duced and might be related to components of multicultural per-
sonality development. Among these are the Test of Personal In-
telligence (Mayer, Panter, & Caruso, 2012), the Categorization-
PONTEROTTO ET AL.
Process-Adaptation-Generalization model (Crisp & Turner,
2011), and the Multilevel Personality-in-Context (MPIC) model
(Sheldon, Cheng, & Hilpert, 2011). All of these models deal di-
rectly or indirectly with interacting in culturally heterogeneous
societies and it would be of value to examine the shared and
unique variance among the models.
Naturally, self-report measures are limited in capturing the
lived experiences of individuals, and researchers working in the
area of multicultural personality development would be wise
to also incorporate qualitative research methods such as in-
depth interviews, focus groups, life story analysis, and partici-
pant observation (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Ponterotto, 2010b).
In-depth, small-sample qualitative research methods would en-
hance our understanding of multicultural personality traits, their
mechanisms of action, and their effects on social interactions
and personality development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Psychological Association, August
2012, Orlando, FL. Funding support for this study was provided
by the Fordham University Faculty Development program.
REFERENCES
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–322.
Alexopoulos, D., & Asimakopoulou, S. (2009). Psychometric properties of
Chen, Gully, and Eden’s “New General Self-Efficacy Scale” in a Greek sam-
ple. Psychological Reports, 105, 245–254.
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary ed.). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, J. (1983). Lix and Rix: Variations on a little-known readability index.
Journal of Reading, 26, 490–496.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist,
57, 774–783.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 1, 35–67.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An
expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Hong, Y-Y. (Eds.). (in press). The Oxford handbook
of multicultural identity: Basic and applied perspectives. New York, NY:
Oxford.
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures
and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish
and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit
in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Beretvas, N. S., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization
study of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 62, 570–589.
Blaskovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 115–160). New York, NY: Academic.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human devel-
opment. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N., (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 27, 509–540. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2704 2
Buss, A. H. (2012). Pathways to individuality: Evolution and development of
personality traits. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain per-
sonality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
4, 359–366.
 MULTICULTURAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Buss, D. M., & Cantor, N. (1989). Introduction. In D. M. Buss & N. Can-
tor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions
(pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programs. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Charter, R. A. (1999). Sample size requirements for precise estimates of re-
liability, generalizability, and validity coefficients. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 559–566.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-
efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-
esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-
evalautions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 375–395.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objec-
tive scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, H. L. K. (1995). Strategies for coping with cultural diversity. The
Counseling Psychologist, 23, 722–740.
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
Corwyn, R. F. (2000). The factor structure of global self-esteem among adoles-
cents and adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 357–379.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inven-
tory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the sta-
bility of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can
personality change? (pp. 21–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experi-
ence of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 242–
266.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability indepen-
dent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 24, 349–354.
Dawis, R. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,
481–489.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Duran, E. (2006). Healing the soul wound: Counseling with American Indians
and other native peoples. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology,
32, 221–233.
Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Marchione, D., & Maffei, C. (2011). The Big Five In-
ventory (BFI): Reliability and validity of its Italian translation in three inde-
pendent nonclinical samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
27, 50–58.
Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000).
Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity
Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33,
157–169.
Gamst, G. C., Liang, C. T. H., & Der-Karabetian, A. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook
of multicultural measures. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Garrett, M. T., Garrett, J. T., Torres-Rivera, E., Wilbur, M., & Roberts-Wilbur, J.
(2005). Laughing it up: Native American humor as spiritual tradition. Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33, 194–204.
Hatcher, J., & Hall, L. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale in African American single mothers. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 30, 70–77.
Helms, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research,
and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Huang, J. (2010). Counseling persons from Eastern religions and spiritualities.
In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed., pp. 491–501). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
557
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting
practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommen-
dations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five
Inventory–Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berke-
ley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative
Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.
P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five taxonomy: History, mea-
surement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford.
Jones, J. M. (2003). TRIOS: A psychological theory of the African legacy in
American culture. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 217–242.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: A guide to the program and
applications. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, train-
ing, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 684–718.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain rep-
resentative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on
well-being and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
51, 482–509.
Little, B. R. (1999). Personality and motivation: Personal action and the conative
evolution. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 501–524). New York, NY: Guilford.
Lopez, S. J., & Edwards, L. M. (2008). The interface of counseling psychology
and positive psychology: Assessing and promoting strengths. In S. D. Brown
& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 86–99).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes
in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The Cognitive Flexibility Scale:
Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11, 1–9.
Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Thweatt, K.S. (1998). The relationship
between the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Communication Flexibility
Scale with aggressive communication traits. Journal of Social and Behavioral
Personality, 13, 531–540.
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility.
Psychological Reports, 76, 623–626.
Martin, M. M., Staggers, S. M., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). The relationships be-
tween cognitive flexibility with dogmatism, intellectual flexibility, preference
for consistency, and self-compassion. Communication Research Reports, 28,
275–280.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A
review of tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 849–873.
Mayer, J. D., Panter, A. T., & Caruso, D. R. (2012). Does personal intelligence
exist? Evidence from a new ability-based measure. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 94, 124–140.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles
for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–
217.
McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. F. (1996). Revising sexual minority identity
formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling
and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate
research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millon, T. (2004). MIPS Revised: Millon Index of Personality Styles Revised
(manual). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P.,
& Fuertes, J. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The
 558
Miville–Guzman Universality–Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 46, 291–307.
Mohatt, G. V., & Thomas, L. R. (2006). “I wonder, why would you do it
that way?” Ethical dilemmas in doing participatory research with Alaska
Native communities. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of
ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities (pp. 93–115).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, L. J. (1993). Understanding an Afrocentric world view: Introduction to
an optimal psychology (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (2003). The effect of using item parcels on ad hoc
goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using
Saranson’s reactions to tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 75–97.
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study inves-
tigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and
their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 204–228.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number
of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.
Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad
versus narrow personality measures and prediction of behaviour across cul-
tures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413–433.
Downloaded by [Kyoto University] at 00:23 21 October 2014
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis:
An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perez-Gualdron, L. M. (2012). A longitudinal study of a social justice orientation
model for Latina/o students. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:
The Sciences and Engineering, 72(11-B), #3464831.
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of
ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54, 271–281.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Multicultural personality. In Y. Jackson (Ed.), Ency-
clopedia of multicultural psychology (pp. 326–328). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2008). Theoretical and empirical advances in multicultural
counseling and psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook
of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 121–140). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010a). Multicultural personality: An evolving theory of op-
timal functioning in culturally heterogeneous environments. The Counseling
Psychologist, 38, 714–758. doi: 10.1177/0011000009359203
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010b). Qualitative research in multicultural psychology:
Philosophical underpinnings, popular approaches, and ethical considerations.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 581–589.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Charter, R. A. (2009). Statistical extensions of Ponterotto
and Ruckdeschel’s (2007) reliability matrix for estimating the adequacy of
internal consistency coefficients. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 878–886.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (in press). Multiculturalism and adjustment. In
V. Benet-Martı́nez & Y-Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural
identity: Basic and applied perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient
alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency
coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 105, 997–1014. doi:10.2466/PMS.105.3.997-1014
Ponterotto, J. G., Utsey, S. O., & Pedersen, P. B. (2006). Preventing prejudice:
A guide for counselors, educators, and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its
invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 122–132.
Ramirez, M., III. (1991). Psychotherapy and counseling with minorities: A
cognitive approach to individual and cultural differences. New York, NY:
Pergamon.
Ramirez, M., III. (1999a). El concepto de personalidad multicultural: Una per-
spectiva de origen etnico mestizo [The concept of multicultural personality:
PONTEROTTO ET AL.
A perspective of ethnic mestizo origin]. Revisita Latinoamericana de Psi-
cologia, 31, 231–250.
Ramirez, M., III. (1999b). Multicultural psychotherapy: An approach to indi-
vidual and cultural differences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain
in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial
structure. Psychological Assessment, 24, 282–292.
Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Y-M. (2008). The genetics and evolution
of the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1173–1185. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.002
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing
data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.
Sabbagh, C. (2005). Environmentalism, right-wing extremism, and social justice
beliefs among East German adolescents. International Journal of Psychology,
40, 118–131.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale–Preliminary manual. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University,
Occupations Health Psychology Unit.
Schmitt, D., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific
features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89, 623–642.
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and
optimal functioning: Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC)
model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1–16.
Sinclair, S. J., Blais, M. A., Gansler, D. A., Sandberg, E., Bistis, K., & LoCi-
cero, A. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale:
Overall and across demographic groups living within the United States. Eval-
uation and the Health Professions, 33, 56–80.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number
of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric
Society, Iowa City, IA.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Differential Personality Questionnaire.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum like-
lihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Van der Zee, K., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness.
European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.
Van der Zee, K., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Per-
sonality Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings
of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278–
288.
Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A.
(2013). Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Development of short form.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 118–124.
Vassar, M. (2008). A note on the score reliability for the Satisfaction with Life
Scale: An RG study. Social Indicators Research, 86, 47–57.
Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial
dimensionality of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52, 487–491.
Vereen, L. G., Butler, S. K., Williams, F. C., Darg, J. A., & Downing, T. K.
E. (2006). The use of humor when counseling African American college
students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 10–15.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research:
A content analysis and recommendations for best practice. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 806–838.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Besser, A., & King, K. (2011). Contingent self-esteem and an-
ticipated reactions to interpersonal rejection and achievement failure. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 1069–1096.