The indigenisation of psychological measurement constitutes a major challenge in the context of indigenising social science research, especially in developing countries of the world. The paper considers the task of developing and validating indigenous tests as an important scientific enterprise while recognising the merits of several other viable strategies. It is asserted that indigenous tests are cultural apparatuses, sensitive to socio-cultural realities of a given system. Indigenous tests are developed when culture is treated not as a target, but as a source. Several parameters of test indigenisation are delineated: these include concept, language, items and materials, ecological setting, population parameters, format and validation procedures. An empirical scale of asses sing test indigenisation is described with a view to measuring indigenisation across time and studies. The limitations of this approach are also indicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adair, J.G. (1989). Indigenous developments in Indian psychology: A quantitative assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Canada.
2.
Adair, J.G. (1992). What is indigenous psychology? Insights from operationalising in measurement. Paper presented at the 10th convention of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Liege, Belgium.
3.
Alfonso, A.B. (1977). Towards developing Philippine psychology: Language-related issues in teaching and research. Paper presented at the fourth conference of the Asian Association on National Languages, University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
4.
Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1964). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
5.
Castillo, G.T. (1964). The role and formation of rural sociology in Asia . Paper presented at the First World Congress of Rural Sociology, Digon, France.
6.
Chin, R. & Chin, A. (1969). Psychological research in communist China, 1949-1966 . Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT Press.
7.
Dash, U.N. & Mishra, H.C. (1988). Testing in ecocultural setting: Some empirical considerations. In F.M. Sahoo (Ed.), Psychology in Indian context. Agra: National Psychological Corporation.
8.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1977). A Mexican psychology. American Psychologist, 32, 934-944.
9.
Doi, L. ( 1974). Amae: A key concept for understanding Japanese personality structure. In R. Levine (Ed.), Culture and personality. Chicago: Aldine.
10.
Enquirez, V.G. (1977). Filipino psychology in the Third World. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
11.
Enquirez, V.G. (1978). Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social psychology ..Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review, 42, 100-108.
12.
Enquirez, V.G. (Ed.). (1990). Indigenous psychology: A book of readings. Quezon City : Philippine Psychology Research and Training House .
13.
Enquirez, V.G. & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (1984). Neo-colonial politics and language struggle in the Philippines (p.30)Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House .
14.
Hagen, E.L. (1962). On the theory of social change. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
15.
Jacob, B.M. & Jacob, P.E. (1977). The diplomacy of cross-national collaborative research. In K. Kumar (Ed.), Bonds without bondage. Honolulu, Hawaii: East West Center.
16.
Kaut, C.R. (1961). Utang na loob: A system of contractual obligation among Tagologs. South-western Journal of Anthropology, 17, 256-272.
17.
Kim, U. ( 1990). Indigenous psychology: Science and applications. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. London: Sage.
18.
Kumar, K. (1976). Indigenization and transnational cooperation in the social sciences. Paper presented at the conference on Emerging Issues in Culture Relation, Honolulu, Hawaii.
19.
Lebra, T.S. (1969). Reciprocity and the asymmetric principle: An analytical reappraisal of the Japanese concept of on. Psychologia, 12,129-138.
20.
Ligmay, A.V. (1984). Western psychology in the Philippines: Impact and response. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 31-44.
21.
Lonner, W.J. (1990). An overview of cross cultural testing and assessment . In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. London: Sage.
22.
Lynch, F. (1973). Social acceptance reconsidered. In F. Lynch & A. de Guzman II (Eds.), Four readings on Philippine values (pp. 1-68). Quezon City: Manila University Press.
23.
Marin, G. & Triandis, H.C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behaviour of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R. Diaz Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social psychology (pp. 85-104). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24.
Mataragnon, R.H. (1977). A conceptual and psychological analysis of sumpong . Philippine Journal of Psychology, 10, 45-53.
25.
Puhan, B.N. (1982). Issue in psychological measurement. Agra: National Psychological Corporation.
26.
Puhan, B.N. & Sahoo, F.M. (1991). Indigenization of psychological studies: Research agenda. Current Journal of Psychological Research, 6(2), 101-107.
27.
Roy, R. ( 1977). Social science cooperation in Asia. UNESCO International Cooperation in the Social Sciences. Paris: UNESCO.
Sevilla, J.C. (1978). Indigenous research methods: Evaluating first returns. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
30.
Sinha, D. (1977). Orientation and attitude of the social psychologist in a developing country: The Indian case. International Review of Applied Psychology, 26, 1-10.
31.
Sinha, D. (1986). Psychology in a third world country: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Sage.
32.
Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the science of man. Review of Metaphysics, 23.
33.
Torres, A.T. (1982). "Pakapa-Kapa" as an approach in Philippine psychology . In Rogelio Pe-Pua (Ed.), Filipino psychology. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
