1

Christopher Brighton

Evaluating Intercultural Competence – a review of selected self-assessment tools

The development of the study, field and skills of Intercultural Communicative Competence

(ICC) has led to a need for researchers and instructors to be able to measure learners ICC

ability. Over the past 50 years several Self-Awareness Inventories, or SAI, have been

developed, such as: the Overseas Assignment Inventory (OAI) by Tucker (1973); the Cross

Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) by Kelley and Meyers (1999); and Mitchell

Hammer’s (1999) Intercultural Development Index (IDI) with its close link to Milton

Bennett’s (2001) Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Other researchers,

such as Byram and the Savoir approach have suggested ways that ICC can be evaluated via

portfolio and ongoing development and observation. Furthermore, as the field of ICC has

expanded so has the scope of many of these tests. Tests such as the F-VOSAI by Pierre Casse

(1982), which surveys communication strategies, and the Learning Styles Inventory by Kolb

(1993), which check values and learning strategies, show that SAI are no longer only

concerned with the traditional understanding of ICC. However, the SAI approach still

dominates in the training field and many of these inventories form the basis of the training

which follows.

Each of the following SAI has been chosen due to their appearance in the literature as

well as the availability of data and information. Apart from the Olson and Kroeger (2001)

SAI, the other three, by Kelley and Meyers, Tucker and Hammer, are copyright owned by

corporate bodies. For access purposes a request for an evaluation copy with relevant data was

made to each institution, with only the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory responding.

Therefore, for the Overseas Assignment Inventory and Intercultural Development Inventory

evaluation is taken from a variety of sources and the websites of the institutions. The INCA

Portfolio (2004) is a widely available European sponsored project and is co-authored by

Michael Byram and based upon his theoretical approach.

This paper discusses the various definitions of the term intercultural and presents

selected SAI. There is uncertainty concerning the definition of what makes someone an

intercultural communicator and even in the definition of the term intercultural itself. As a

result, this leads to the existence of too many SAIs in the public domain and confusion in the

use and application of these various tests. Therefore, the discussion centres on the problems

of developing an assessment tool as, firstly, it is important to address the question ‘What is

2

being tested?’ with a clear definition of the concepts and terms understood by the test creator.

Secondly, the test may be only theoretical in approach and fail to assess the practical

application of the knowledge, which may result in a false positive leading a trainee to believe

their classroom intercultural skills will be as effective in the field. Yet, for training purposes

some form of evaluation method is required to allow trainees to identify their weaknesses and

for trainers to construct programmes to address these weaknesses.

Defining Intercultural

The Silent Language (Hall, 1959) is widely claimed to be the introduction of the idea

Intercultural Communication and led to the creation of the field. (Pusch, 2004, p. 15) Since

this time, intercultural communication has been claimed by research fields from linguistics to

business and science. “The intersection of political interests with economic marketability has

doubtless also contributed to the increasing intensity of the debate surrounding the concept

known as ‘intercultural competence’.” (Rathje, 2007, p. 255) The resulting outcome is that

intercultural competence appears not to have a fixed position in academic disciplines and

academic departments for intercultural studies seem to be few and far between. Indeed,

foreign language departments, which can be said to be at the forefront of intercultural

understanding, only recently seem to be developing integration between linguistics and

intercultural ability. (Byrnes, 2002)

Intercultural Competence is multi-disciplinary and as a result, there are a plethora of

definitions. According to Rathje (2007, p. 255):

“The dizzying amount of material can be explained to a great extent by the

lack of any unity in the definition of the term ‘intercultural competence’ itself.

Differing understandings of the most fundamental nature of intercultural

competence and hence its appropriate application necessarily lead to differing

perspectives on the discrete competences of which it may be composed or,

indeed, whether it can be learnt.”

Dervin, quoting Deardorff, lists: “cross-cultural adaptation, intercultural sensitivity,

multicultural competence, global competence [...]” as interchangeable terms. (Dervin, 2009,

p. 3) Furthermore, Sinicrope, Norris and Watanabe (Castle Sinicrope; John Norris; Yukiko

Watanabe, 2007, p. 3) provide the following table:

3

Alternative Terms for Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) (Adapted from

Fantini,

2006, Appendix D)

transcultural

communication cross-

cultural communication

cross-cultural awareness

global competitive

intelligence global

competence

cross-cultural adaptation

international competence

international

communication

intercultural interaction

intercultural sensitivity

intercultural cooperation

cultural sensitivity

cultural competence

communicative

competence

ethnorelativity

biculturalism

multiculturalism

pluralingualism

effective inter-group

communication

Byram, Gribkova and Starkey (2002, p. 5) rationalise and clarify their understanding

by suggesting that the labels concern different parts of the same whole. They state:

“In language teaching, the concept of ‘communicative competence’

[emphasises] that language learners need to acquire not just grammatical

competence but also the knowledge of what is appropriate language. [...] the

‘intercultural dimension’ [...] aims to develop learners as intercultural

speakers or mediators who are able to engage with complexity and multiple

identities [...] So language teaching with an intercultural dimension continues

to help learners to acquire the linguistic competence needed to communicate

in speaking and writing [...] But it also develops their intercultural

competence i.e. their ability to ensure a shared understanding by people of

different social identities, and their ability to interact with people as complex

human being with multiple identities and their own individual identity.” [Bold

type in the original]

Their view sees ‘intercultural’ as having two separate, but connected, dimensions:

linguistic and social. Their approach stresses “skills, attitudes and values” as central to being

intercultural. The issue of identifying the skills of intercultural competence is central to any

study or survey.

4

However, again we meet an overwhelming mountain of information regarding the

necessary skills for intercultural competence. Approaches such as Ting-Toomey (1999) stress

identity negotiation and self-awareness with mindfulness of the situation. Byram (1997),

suggest 5 skills or savoirs which combine and develop over time to provide the learner with

intercultural competence. Sinicrope, Norris and Watanabe (2007, p. 5) classify these as

“European” dimensions, which suggests that they are geographically specific. Other

approaches include that of Hofstede (2005) whose work suggests 5 categories of cultural

behaviour and values which can be examined and measured. Additionally, Bennett’s (J.M

Bennett, M.J Bennett and W. Allen, 2003) Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

which stresses “[...] the ability to recognise oneself operating in a cultural context, and the

development of general strategies for adapting to cultural differences” (p. 246) places

learners on a six stage scale of developing sensitivity – Denial, Defense, Minimization,

Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration.

Self Awareness Inventories

Self-awareness inventories or instruments (SAI) are a frequent part of intercultural training to

provide a ‘baseline’ position for the learner and give some indication of issues that need to be

addressed by the tutor. They encourage the student and instructor to enter into a dialogue

about the outcome that is presented. Moreover, they are useful as they introduce many terms

and ideas that are part of the intercultural profile and that will be used or referred to in the

training programme. However, their recent growth has been directly linked with the

development of intercultural communication in business, government and academics.

Brown and Knight (1999) state that SAIs have numerous uses in training. For example

they:

provide instrumented feedback to group members

introduce training concepts

supply a nonthreatening vocabulary

serve as a frame of reference

orchestrate group composition

analyze individual and group functioning

Further, they suggest that:

5

“Self-awareness inventories introduce concepts and vocabulary that give

trainees a non-judgemental framework within which to examine their attitudes

and behaviours. Trainees can identify group trends, then tailor program design

to place more or less emphasis of certain topics or skills”. (1999, p. 19)

This allows SAI to be used for a number of purposes including evaluating study-abroad

programmes, assessing cross-cultural occupational interests, focusing training on intercultural

development, providing feedback to modify the training process and content, helping learners

compare and contrast culture, engaging learners in discussion and encouraging them to

generate different explanations of intercultural events. (Paige, 2004, p. 86) Often, an SAI is

administered to: Foreign Service, military and government agencies prior to overseas

postings; Students and faculty as pre-departure preparation; Business and industry employees

for overseas assignments; Community groups where multicultural bonding is important;

Families who accommodate overseas guests; and Non-profit or religious organisations for

overseas work. (Chris Brown; Kasey Knight, 1999, pp. 23-24)

The main use of SAIs appears to be as a point of pre-departure. Employees,

bureaucrats, educators and missionaries are tested and trained prior to overseas work in order

to minimise cross-cultural conflicts. As the awareness of ICC has increased, so has the

number of SAI on the market. Correspondingly, there has also been an increase in the number

of training programmes. Many SAI are developed and run in conjunction with training

programmes by specialist consultancy corporations. This has led to the most renown and

successful SAI being controlled and administered under license from these corporations. The

more widely available SAI are often based on research of those obtained under license,

however they lack the frequency of use and reliability of the corporately owned versions.

Paige (2004) categorises SAI into two main divisions: Organizational Assessment and

Development and Personal Assessment and Development. Each division also contains several

sub-categories covering topics such as Equal Opportunity Climate, Cultural Identity,

Learning Styles and Prejudice and Racism. (2004, p. 94) His organisation of the selected SAI

into these categories displays the variation and wide-range of aspects being investigated by

these tests, and again highlights the issue of a clear definition of intercultural. Given their

developing importance it is surprising that: “[...] little has been written about instruments as a

component of intercultural training design and training pedagogy” (2004, p. 85).

6

Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

One of the most widely known SAIs is the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) by

Hammer (1999), which Paige assigns a category to itself. The IDI is well known in the ICC

field as it is directly linked to the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity developed

by Bennett. Mitchel Hammer, the creator of the 50 item IDI, worked closely with Bennett to

produce an inventory which corresponds directly to the model. This means that the leaner that

completes the SAI is placed in one of the 6 stages as outlined in the DMIS by Bennett. The

IDI has a high reliability and validity as it is extensively used by trainers and researchers. As

the IDI website states:

“The IDI measures an individual’s (or a group’s) fundamental worldview

orientation to cultural difference, and thus the individual’s or group’s capacity

for intercultural competence. As a theory-based test, the IDI meets the

standard scientific criteria for a valid and reliable psychometric instrument.”

(IDI_Sample, 2006)

The questions in the IDI relate directly to the categories of the DMIS. For example, in

Bennett’s Denial Stage a sample question is: Society would be better off if culturally different

groups kept to themselves. A sample question for Acceptance is: It is appropriate that people

from other countries do not necessarily have the same values and goals as people from my

culture. (Castle Sinicrope; John Norris; Yukiko Watanabe, 2007, p. 18). The authors of the

inventory place particular focus on the validity which stems from studies ranging from

university students abroad to trainee physicians. (IDI_Sample, 2006)

The Overseas Assignment Inventory (OAI)

One of the oldest inventories is the OAI (1973) developed by Tucker. Originally the

inventory was built in the 1970s and used extensively in preparation of military and

diplomatic personnel for overseas postings. Tucker states that the OAI is among the most

“thoroughly researched cross-cultural self-assessment instruments” and “is continuously

refined and revised as new research data become available”. (Tucker, 1999, p. 45) The

current form is an 84 item inventory, which according to Tucker International, had been

completed by 4,450 corporate employees and spouses by 1999. (Paige, 2004, p. 116)

The OAI focuses on fourteen dimensions which are seen as important attitudes and

attributes necessary for cross-cultural adaptation. They range from Expectations and Respect

for Other Beliefs to Sense of Humor and Spouse Communication. (Tucker, 1999, p. 47) An

7

individual’s score is plotted on a graph in relationship to a baseline to form a representation

of the cross-cultural adaptability. Completion of the test should be followed up with a

training programme which identifies the key elements crucial for successful adjustment and

opens a dialogue with participants about their feelings and reactions to their score. The final

point highlighted by Tucker is that: “[...] the trainees [should be encouraged] to study

carefully their personalized Assessment and Development Guide and use it as a resource for

personal development”. (1999, p. 49)

Much of the Tucker approach is designed to be an integrated package, with evaluation

followed by training. The focus is on Social Interpersonal Style, Worldview, Approach to

Situations and Self-Direction as part of a pre-departure awareness programme for expatriate

workers. The Tucker International website highlights the areas of current interest the OAI is

targeting: International Executive Training; Iraq Intercultural Training Program; and English

Language and American Culture Training Program for Indian Call Centres. (Tucker

International Services, 2009)

The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI)

The CCAI was developed by Kelley and Meyers (1999) and is readily available. It is a 50

item self-administered and self-scored pen and paper test, with an additional online version.

This makes it more accessible and deliverable in contrast to the two presented earlier which

require training for administrators and external scoring, which according to Paige, makes it

the most commonly used inventory. (2004, p. 114) The key concept of cross-cultural

adaptability is based on a review of theoretical and research literatures and measures four

personality characteristics: personal autonomy, perceptual acuity, flexibility and openness

and emotional resilience.

Furthermore, the reliability and validity of the CCAI is strong. Grant’s (2008) in-

depth analysis of the four dimensions of the CCAI states:

Flexibility/Openness subscale measures the extent people are open to and

comfortable

interacting with, learning about, and are inquisitive about diversity; Sample

question = “I can enjoy relating to all kinds of people.”; Reliability = .80.

Perceptual Acuity subscale measures attentiveness to verbal and nonverbal

communication in interpersonal relations and is associated with valuing other

8

cultures; Sample question = “I try to understand people’s thoughts and

feelings when I talk to them.”; Reliability = .78.

Personal Autonomy subscale measures the extent to which people make their

own final decisions; Sample question = “If my ideas conflicted with those of

others who are different from me, I would follow my ideas rather than theirs.”;

Reliability = .68.

Emotional Resilience subscale measures the degree to which an individual can

rebound from negative feelings; Sample question = “I have ways to deal with

the stresses of new situations.”; Reliability = .82.

As Kelley and Meyers (2003) state:

“Research indicates that a number of factors influence cross-cultural

effectiveness. Some of these factors such as foreign language skill, familiarity

with another culture, and previous residence abroad are easily measured. The

CCAI was developed to help identify and assess factors that are not so easily

measured or as culturally specific.”

Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI)

Another well known and well used survey is that created by Olson and Kroeger (2001)

known as Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity Index. The survey was used to

investigate intercultural competence among the employees of New Jersey University and was

designed with the cultural issues of these people in mind. Given the multicultural nature of

the city, the questions related to attitudes and experiences that were well within each

respondent’s daily experiences. This increases the validity of the survey as it is specifically

designed with a precise group in mind and the questions are relevant to their experiences.

Unlike the other surveys mentioned, which are generic and have no specific audience in

mind, the tailoring of surveys to focus and fit certain groups of people is commendable.

The responses to the 32 Intercultural Sensitivity questions were evaluated and linked

to the DMIS, in a similar structure to the IDI. For example: Denial: I think that cultural

diversity really only exists in other places; Acceptance: I think that cultural variations in

behaviour spring from different worldview assumptions; Integration: When faced with a

choice about how I am going to respond to a given situation, I am able to shift between two

9

or more cultural perspectives and consciously make a choice to act from one of these cultural

contexts. (Olson, Christa Lee; Kroeger, Kent R., 2001)

Additionally, Olson and Kroeger’s employed the 25 item Global Competency test

which asked questions in three categories: Substantive Knowledge: I believe the world has

become economically, environmentally and politically interdependent; Perceptual

Understanding: I am conscious of my own perspectives and culture; and Intercultural

Competence: I can act as a cultural mediator and serve as a bridge between people of

different cultures. (2001) Unlike the other inventories presented above, according to

Sinicrope, Norris and Watanabe, only one other study using the ISI can be found conducted

by Williams in 2005. The findings of the study are generally positive, but lead to caution due

to moderate reliability. (Castle Sinicrope; John Norris; Yukiko Watanabe, 2007, p. 24)

Portfolio

The portfolio based approach stems from work conducted by Byram (1997) and his

development of savoir. In 2004, the European based INCA (Intercultural Competence

Assessment) research project developed a Portfolio of Intercultural Competence. The

theoretical framework is based on work by Michael Byram, Torsten Kuhlmann, Bernd

Muller-Jacquier and Gerhard Budin and covers six key areas: Tolerance for Ambiguity;

Behavioural Flexibility; Communicative Awareness; Knowledge Discovery; Respect for

Otherness; and Empathy (INCA The Theory, 2005). The portfolio has three sections. The

first is a Passport of Intercultural Competence which combines an external assessment, on-

line assessment and self-assessment. The second section is a Biography of Intercultural

Competence and the third section is the Dossier of Evidence which allows trainees:

1. to describe their intercultural background;

2. to reflect on how they see themselves in an intercultural situation;

3. to record actual experiences of intercultural co-operation, stating what

important developmental lessons they learnt on each occasion and to reflect

analytically on their current successes and challenges.

The Biography of Intercultural Competence is intended to promote self-

awareness and motivate the assessee to take responsibility for his or her own

progress. (2004, p. 3)

10

This final section is expected to include certificates, feedback statements, ‘witness’

statements from colleagues and individuals and audio or video recordings of the assessee

interacting effectively in any intercultural situation. (Portfolio of Intercultural Competence,

2004)

Such a portfolio based approach is clearly a long-term project which will monitor the

trainee’s progress overtime. The initial phase utilises SAI techniques and additionally

requires self-awareness feedback and participant and external observations. The combination

of these three sections is designed to increase mindfulness and awareness of the cultural self

in intercultural situations. Undertaking such a portfolio enables the learner to bear witness to

their developing intercultural competence. As skills are put into practice, the theory can be

managed through trial and error in situational interactions. Most importantly, with the request

of the Dossier of Evidence to include audio and video recordings, the trainee is given further

opportunity to reflect on his or her performance.

At the same time, the INCA portfolio takes greatly from SAI, such as section two of

the Dossier of Evidence: “How I see myself in intercultural contexts”. (2004, pp. 25-26) This

is an inventory scored on a 5 point scale covering three areas: Encounters with different

cultures in my own country; Encounters with people of different cultures in their own

countries or communities; and Encounters with different cultures in the workplace. The

trainee is requested to score their own feelings on questions covering each area. For example:

Eating and drinking in other cultural contexts, for example,

mealtime procedures

Coping with the customs of host countries or communities, for

example, rules and courtesies that local people observe and may

expect me to observe

Relating to colleagues from other countries, for example, learning

what they like to talk about during their work breaks

(2004, pp. 25-26)

The area of most interest, though, is the first section of the Dossier of Evidence which

is titled: “My Intercultural Background: factors that may have influenced how I respond to

intercultural situations”. (2004, pp. 23-24) This section is different from SAI as it asks the

learner to reflect on their personal experiences and socio-cultural development and

11

acknowledge areas of conflict, therefore becoming increasingly self-aware of intercultural

competence in the process. The section asks the trainee to respond to prompts: My family

background; Travel to other countries for holiday or work purposes; Time spent living

abroad; Time spent in a multicultural community in home country; Social contacts, friends

from abroad; Social contacts, friends from within multicultural community in home country;

Work experience in other countries; Language learning experience; and Other factors that

have helped me experience cultures other than my own. This approach requires the learner to

acknowledge socio-cultural factors and reflect on their learning, work and social experiences

that may have an impact on their intercultural competence.

Conclusions

Self-assessment has pitfalls. Firstly, the learner may not be able to reflect on their own socio-

cultural background and feel unable to complete any of the categories. Additionally, they

may judge the questions too personal and feel uncomfortable with the results and

interpretation of their answers. In the case that the portfolio will be evaluated by an external

assessor or within a focus group environment, admitting to prejudice or lack of experience

and competence may be seen as a failure. To protect themselves from such a situation, the

learners may resort to answering with what they believe to be politically correct answers. As

Tucker highlights, there is the tendency to answer SAI questions in a Socially Desirable

manner or to feel singled out by management to undertake the test. (1999, p. 51)

The overall approach of the portfolio is positive, in that it monitors the development

of the student, however, the length of time to complete could be demotivating. The portfolio

approach is a combination of pen and paper tests and observations of intercultural contact

over a period of time. Yet, the length of the process could lead to impatience. Intensive

foreign language training can produce results in a few months and many trainees would

expect the same from intercultural training. Unfortunately, for many learners in the modern

world of education and business, where overseas postings are possible, there is not the luxury

of having a number of years of preparation before being faced with intercultural situations.

Furthermore, the multiple labels and definitions leads Szkudlarek (2009) to complain

that the current standards in the intercultural field are caused by lack of peer review and

professional credentials for those who claim to be intercultural trainers. Furthermore, the

issue of the overall vision of intercultural competence is directly affected by the plurality of

approaches. Rather than being enhanced and progressively developed in the multiple

12

disciplines which the intercultural approach effects, Szkudlarek complains: “[...] without any

sort of peer review, the critical issue of ethical and moral responsibilities of intercultural

trainers and their work remains mostly underplayed or unaddressed”. (2009, p. 976) The fear

is that the approaches of trainers may lead to the development of a ‘voodoo’ intercultural

field which relies upon the popularity of the terminology rather than a scientific approach

underpinning the theory.

Further, Ruben and Kealey (1979, pp. 19-20) state:

“It is not uncommon for an individual to be exceptionally well versed on the

theories of cross-cultural effectiveness, possess the best of motives, and be

sincerely concerned about enacting his role accordingly, yet be unable to

demonstrate those understandings in his own behaviour.”

In this respect pen and paper SAIs focus on the theoretical framework whilst ignoring the

practical dimension required. As stated, a trainee may possess the theory, yet the important

factor is having the ability to put the theory into practice. What needs to be acknowledged is

that intercultural competence is a ‘doing’ exercise that involves real life events and

interactions. It cannot be done from the safety of a classroom or office desk, but demands

contact with others and the ability to interact. This is what makes the difference between

linguistic competence, which can be done in exercises and other tasks such as letter writing.

However, despite these concerns the SAI remains a useful and successful tool in the

dialogue of developing intercultural competence. The questions, even if answered in a

politically correct manner, still introduce the central concepts of intercultural competence and

address areas of culture shock and conflict. The trainee is sensitised to the areas of concern in

intercultural contact. Additionally, the SAI has a place in providing a measurement of

capability as in the educational environment today there is a value on being able to grade a

learner. Regardless of the validity or effectiveness of the SAI, the use of a measurement tool

will provide the leaner with a feeling of success and achievement. On completion of a

training course or before an overseas posting, the SAI has a role to highlight areas that

require consideration during intercultural contact and to provide praise for the success in

other areas.

In consideration, the most important factor for using an SAI or portfolio is to

introduce the concepts and notions of intercultural competence in a measurable manner.

13

There is something to be said for the use of tools which grade a learner’s level and bring in to

their learning sphere key concepts and ideas. The tool is the medium for the introduction of

situations and factors where intercultural competence is important. On completion of the SAI

the learner should be sensitised, not necessarily to intercultural competence itself, but at least

have an awareness of the events where intercultural competence is necessary. The portfolio

approach gets the balance exactly right when it highlights the fact that learning to be

intercultural is not possible after a course, but is part of lifelong learning. Only through

several years of intercultural contact and the trials and errors this entails, can a learner be

successfully said to be intercultural or not. A pen and paper SAI cannot achieve this, but this

does not mean it cannot be used. They have to be used advisedly and with guidance to ensure

the learner understands that success on the test does not necessarily mean success in life

situations.

Bibliography

Brent D. Ruben and Daniel J. Kealy. (1979, Spring). Behavioral Assessment of

Communicative Competency and the Prediction of Cross-Cultural Adaptation. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations , 3 (1), pp. 15-48.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byrnes, H. (2002, Winter). Language and Culture: Shall the Twain Ever Meet in Foreign

Language Departmnets? ADFL Bulletin , 33 (2), pp. 25-32.

Castle Sinicrope; John Norris; Yukiko Watanabe. (2007, Fall). Understanding and Assessing

Intercultural Competence: A summary of Theory, Research and Practice (Technical Report

for the Foreign Language Program Evaluation Project). Second Language Studies , 26 (1), pp.

1-58.

Chris Brown; Kasey Knight. (1999). Introduction to Self-Awareness Inventories. In S. M.

Fowler, Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods (pp. 19-30). Boston,

MA: Intercultural Press.

14

Dervin, F. (2009, 10 30). Assessing intercultural competence in Language Learning and

Teaching: a critical review of current efforts. Retrieved 02 17, 2010, from

http://users.utu.fi/freder/Assessing%20intercultural%20competence%20in%20Language%20

Learning%20and%20Teaching.pdf

Geert Hofstede; Gert Jan Hofstede. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the

Mind. New York: McGraw Hill.

Grant, S. K. (2008, April 30). Cross-Cultural Adaptability: Influences of The Effect of Ethnic

Identity on Other-Group Orientation. Retrieved July 2009, 24, from California State

University, Nothridge: http://www.csun.edu/csbs/events/virtual-presentation-fair-2008/Cross-

Cultural%20Adaptability.pdf?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Random House.

IDI_Sample. (2006, 05 04). Retrieved 03 02, 2010, from The OFFICIAL Site of the

Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI): http://www.idiinventory.com/pdf/idi_sample.pdf

Intercultural Training and Expatriate Assessment Services from Tucker International. (2009).

Retrieved 02 22, 2010, from Overseas Assignment Inventory:

http://www.tuckerintl.com/general/products/CapsOfTucker1.html

J.M Bennett, M.J Bennett and W. Allen. (2003). Developing Intercultural Competence in the

Language Classroom. In D. L. Lange, & R. M. Paige, Culture as the Core (pp. 237-270).

Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (2003). CCAI Sample Report. Chicago: Vangent Inc.

Michael Byram, Bella Gribkova and Hugh Starkey. (2002). Developing the Intercultural

Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg: The

Council of Europe.

Michael Byram; Torsten Kühlmann; Bernd Müller-Jacquier; Gerhard Budin. (2005, 01 21).

INCA The Theory. Retrieved 02 13, 2010, from Inca project:

http://www.incaproject.org/en_downloads/24_INCA_THE_THEORY_eng_final.pdf

Olson, Christa Lee; Kroeger, Kent R. (2001). Global Competencey and Intercultural

Sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education , 5 (2), 116-137.

15

Paige, R. M. (2004). Instrumentation in Intercultural Training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, &

M. J. Bennett, Handbook of Intercultural Training: Third Edition (pp. 85-128). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Portfolio of Intercultural Competence. (2004, 12 17). Retrieved 02 13, 2010, from INCA

project: http://www.incaproject.org/en_downloads/24_INCA_THE_THEORY_eng_final.pdf

Pusch, M. D. (2004). Intercultural Training in Historical Perspective. In J. M. Dan Landis,

Handbook of Intercultural Training (3rd Edition ed., pp. 13-36). Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage Publications.

Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural Competence: The Status and Future of a Controversial

Concept. Langauge and Intercultural Communication , 7 (4), pp. 254-266.

Szkudlarek, B. (2009). Through Western Eyes: Insights into the Intercultural Training Field.

Organization Studies , pp. 975-986.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: Guilford.

Tucker, M. F. (1999). Self-Awareness and Development Using the Overseas Assignment

Inventory. In S. Fowler (Ed.), Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods

(pp. 45-52). Boston MA: Intercultural Press.