Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35997410›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2022

Cultural Intelligence: What Is It and How Can It Effectively Be Measured?

Robert J Sternberg, Ilaria Siriner, Jaime Oh, Chak Haang Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Robert J SternbergDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-5169
Ilaria SirinerDepartment of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5376-749X
Jaime OhDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Chak Haang WongDepartment of Higher Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7205-038X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We administered both maximum-performance and typical-performance assessments of cultural intelligence to 114 undergraduates in a selective university in the Northeast of the United States. We found that cultural intelligence could be measured by both maximum-performance and typical-performance tests of cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence as assessed by a maximum-performance measure is largely distinct from the construct as assessed by a typical-performance measure. The maximum-performance test, the Sternberg Test of Cultural Intelligence (SCIT), showed high internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Sections with problems from two content domains-Business (SCIT-B) and Leisure (SCIT-L) activities-were highly intercorrelated, suggesting they measured largely the same construct. The SCIT showed substantial correlations with another maximum-performance measure of cultural intelligence, Views-on-Culture. It also was correlated, at more modest levels, with fluid intelligence and personal intelligence tests. Factorially, the (a) maximum-performance cultural intelligence tests, (b) typical-performance cultural intelligence test and a test of openness to experience, and (c) fluid intelligence tests formed three separate factors.

Indexed as

cultural intelligenceculturegeneral intelligenceintelligencemaximum-performance testpractical intelligencetacit knowledgetypical-performance test

Identifiers

PMID35997410
PMCPMC9396990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.