Example assignment 4 PSYC3020 APA 7 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Example assignment 4 PSYC3020 APA 7 PDF

Description

PSYC3020 Assignment – Title Page

Student’s name (First name, Last name): Ali Revill

Student number: 12345678

Date: 10/09/2020

Title of research proposal: A Proposal for the Modification of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory for Use as a Diagnostic Tool in Migration Law Matters

Tutor’s name (First name, Last name): Alexandra Adams

Tutorial (e.g., T01): T10

Total word count (excluding in-text references, the reference list, and this title page): 2170 words

Topic 1 Declaration “I, Ali Revill, declare that I have received written permission to do the topic of “A Proposal for the Modification of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory for Use as a Diagnostic Tool in Migration Law Matters” on 24/07/2020, by my tutor Alexandra Adams.”

Executive Summary By law, non-citizens who have lived in Australia since infancy can have their visas cancelled and be forcibly returned to their country of citizenship if they commit a crime. However, no test exists to predict the psychological impediments faced upon this forcible return. While this represents a necessary consideration in these judgments, current methods

to gather this information (if gauged at all) are informal, unstandardised and subjective. Therefore, decision-makers have neither adequate nor valid evidence on which to base their decisions. Consequently, non-optimal visa cancellation decisions are more likely to occur, resulting in increased (1) failure to deport criminal non-citizens who should be removed, and (2) deportation of non-citizens who are at-risk of genuine psychological harm upon forced return to their citizenship country. I propose the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) be modified to address this issue, by lengthening the existing four subscales and adding a fifth labelled “Risk Appetite”. This new test is predicted to reliably and validly gauge success in cross-cultural adaptability following forcible return to one’s country of citizenship. Psychometric properties will be assessed via (1) predictive validity by correlating test scores with change scores on a psychological well-being measure before and after removal (i.e., an indicator of cross-cultural adaptability success), (2) construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the new instrument against a predicted five-factor model of cross-cultural adaptability, (3) internal consistency of the five modified subscales, and (4) test-retest reliability through correlation of test scores across two time points.

Aims and Significance Under migration law, non-citizens who have lived in Australia since infancy can have their visas cancelled due to criminal activity, forcing their return to their country of citizenship (Billings, 2018). When deciding whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa, decision-makers (i.e., the Minister for Immigration, the Minister’s delegates, or members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) are required to consider the visa-holder’s risk of (1) re-offending, and (2) facing significant impediments if forcible return occurs (i.e., factors preventing establishment and maintenance of a basic standard of living; Billings, 2018; Townsend, 2017). While psychological reports obtained for these decisions use diagnostic tools to assess the re-offending risk (e.g., the Level of Service InventoryRevised; Andrews & Bonta, 1995; Coyle & Keyzer, 2016; Townsend, 2017), no formal standardised measure is employed to predict the psychological impediments the visaholder may face if deported. This is a known risk factor, given evidence that noncitizens who are forcibly removed from Australia experience poorer mental health (e.g., Dajani, 2018; Porter & Haslam, 2005; Schick et al., 2016). Without accurate consideration of this information, visa cancellation decisions may not strike the correct balance between (1) deporting non-citizens who pose significant risk to the safety of Australian communities, and (2) not deporting those at-risk of substantial psychosocial harm upon return to their country of citizenship, to ensure we―as a nation―maintain responsibility for all our residents.

Background Cross-Cultural Adaptability: The Importance Cultural dislocation (removal of a person from one location organised by a particular set of cultural practices to another with a different set of cultural practices;

Dajani, 2018) can lead to poorer mental health outcomes for refugees and asylum seekers (e.g., Dajani, 2018; Porter & Haslam, 2005; Sam et al., 2008; Schick et al., 2016), but improved psychological well-being for other populations such as voluntary immigrants, even compared with native groups (e.g., Hayes-Bautista, 2004). Given that non-citizens facing deportation have not voluntarily elected to return to their countries of citizenship, I argue that the psychological impediments they may face upon return will be more similar to those of involuntary (i.e., refugees and asylum seekers) than voluntary immigrants. Multiple studies have identified that social isolation and feelings of loneliness— factors strongly associated with mental health problems (Ahmad et al., 2005; De Maio & Kemp, 2010; Ponizovsky & Ritsner, 2004)—are common among involuntary immigrants (e.g., Hurtado-de-Mendoza et al., 2015; Kim & Lee, 2014; Sanchón-Macias et al., 2016). Additionally, Dajani (2018) identified that melancholia (a mental disorder characterised by extreme depression, loss of body sensation, and hallucinations and delusions) is frequently experienced by those mourning the loss of their country and culture. Of further concern are longitudinal study findings that immigrants’ psychological well-being had not improved eight years after immigration, suggesting that cross-cultural adaptability is a difficult and ongoing process (Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2008). Long-term exposure to unpredictable and uncontrollable events may limit a person’s capacity to assess their own psychological wellbeing (Asner-Self & Marotta, 2005). This could compound the problem if individuals fail to seek necessary mental health treatment due to this lack of self-insight. Indeed, suicide prevalence within involuntary immigrant populations in some countries is significantly higher than within the native-born population (Hjern & Allebeck, 2002). This evidence highlights the importance of successful cross-cultural adaptation for those whose visas have been cancelled under Australia’s migration laws. Indeed, noncitizens’ social and emotional hardship due to cultural dislocation following forced

removal has been recognised by the Australian Government and Courts (Billings, 2018). At least four reported cases of suicide have been the direct result of an individual’s removal from Australia after visa cancellation (Bennett, 2018; Gibson, 2009), and many more deportees have contemplated suicide (e.g., Atfield, 2015; Spink, 2017). Despite decision-makers being required to consider psychological preparedness when evaluating non-citizens for deportation, there is currently no standardised or validated tool available on which to base this decision. Any information gathered about this aspect is done via informal means, such as unstructured interviews or additional notes on official forms. Yet basis for a valid measure of psychological preparedness exists: the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI; Kelley & Meyers, 1995). The CCAI The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Kelley & Meyers, 1995) was designed as a self-assessment tool for migrants moving between cultures, or those returning home after a significant time abroad. The CCAI measures cross-cultural adaptability across four facets: emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, and personal autonomy. Greater emotional resilience and flexibility/openness have been linked to lower psychopathy levels in immigrant and refugee populations (Neftçi & Çetrez, 2017), while greater perceptual acuity and personal autonomy equip immigrants with the mental preparedness and motivation to both proactively and retroactively cope with change (Guribye et al., 2011). In practice, the CCAI is most commonly used as an informal employee self-selection measure for international employment opportunities (Davis & Finney, 2006), as it has been argued there is not sufficient psychometric evidence warranting its use as a diagnostic tool in its present form (Kelley & Meyers, 1995). Critiques suggest the CCAI’s external validity (i.e., the extent results generalise to other populations) is likely limited by overrepresentation of college-educated travellers in

the normative study sample. The number of subscale items is also not sufficient to accurately and reliably measure the complex personality traits e.g., personal autonomy is gauged using only seven items; Nguyen et al., 2010). This may limit construct validity of the CCAI (i.e., the extent that items accurately measure the personality traits intended). Additionally, no evidence exists regarding the measure’s predictive validity (i.e., the extent that CCAI scores predict actual levels of success in psychologically adapting once returned to one’s citizenship/home/alternate country). Despite these limitations, the CCAI can be adapted into a standardised valid diagnostic tool that can measure non-citizens’ predicted success in adapting psychologically to their country of citizenship, provided the psychometric properties of prior concern are addressed appropriately.

Proposed Test/Test Battery and Rationale Proposed CCAI Modification I propose modification of the CCAI to warrant its use as a diagnostic tool capable of predicting non-citizens’ success level in adapting psychologically to the culture of their country of citizenship following forced removal from Australia. I aim to enhance the current CCAI psychometric properties by: (a) using a representative normative sample from the population of interest to provide a more accurate external validity measure, and (b) increasing the number of subscale items to more precisely and comprehensively tap each CCAI personality trait, thus promoting construct validity. Further, in response to recent research into predictors of refugee adjustment (Hahn et al., 2019), I propose inclusion of a fifth subscale: “Risk Appetite”. Hahn et al. (2019) found that refugee willingness to take risks resulted in a higher likelihood of employment and befriending others. These outcomes were independent of those for the four personality traits measured in the original CCAI, identifying this as an

important inclusion in the modified version. Given Hahn et al.’s (2019) findings that risk appetite was an independent predictor of successful cross-cultural adaptation, and the Adventure subscale of the Strong Interest Inventory (SII; Hansen & Campbell, 1985) measures willingness to take risks (Douce & Hansen, 1988), it is proposed that addition of a Risk Appetite subscale (drawn from the Adventure SII subscale) will enhance construct validity of the modified CCAI. Once developed, this new tool could be administered as part of a psychological assessment non-citizens undergo during the visa cancellation decision process, providing a more standardised and valid means of gauging the extent of psychological impediment non-citizens likely face following deportation. Consequently, use of this measure is predicted to decrease the number of non-optimal decisions made in relation to crucial deportation determinations.

Study Design Study Rationale Given the lack of psychometric data for the original CCAI, it is imperative to evaluate the psychometric properties of the modified CCAI to assess its effectiveness as a diagnostic tool of cross-cultural adaptability in the context described above. Participants and Design Participants will be the 700 non-citizens currently held in immigration detention centres across Australia facing deportation due to cancellation of their visas (Department of Home Affairs, 2018). A longitudinal study design will be used in which participants’ psychological well-being will be assessed at two time points, 12 months apart (pre- and post-deportation from Australia). The modified CCAI will also be administered across two time points (minimum three weeks apart), to allow for test-retest reliability assessment.

Given the first psychological well-being and modified CCAI assessment administration will be simultaneous, three testing time points across 12 months will be required. Measures Modified Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory The modified CCAI will contain five subscales: emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, personal autonomy, and risk appetite. Higher scores will indicate greater cross-cultural adaptability. I will increase the number of items in each original subscale to 20 (100 items in total) as a strategy to increase likelihood that the multi-dimensional nature of the complex personality traits is captured effectively. Pre- and Post-Test Measure of Psychological Well-Being The Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) will be included to evaluate the new test. It comprises of six subscales: self-acceptance, mastery of the surrounding environment, quality of relationships, continued growth and development, purposeful living, and autonomy. Each subscale has demonstrated acceptable to excellent internal reliability [i.e., α = .86 (autonomy) - α = .93 (self-acceptance); Ryff, 1989]. Higher SPWB scores indicate greater psychological well-being. The SPWB was chosen over other measures as it considers psychological well-being to be a multi-dimensional construct comprised of not only positive emotion, but also living a balanced and virtuous life (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Therefore, it was deemed more reflective of successful cross-cultural adaptation than positive emotion alone. Procedure Initial psychological assessment will be conducted while participants are in immigration detention, before removal from Australia. The modified CCAI and SPWB will be administered at this first testing time point. Participants will also complete the modified CCAI a second time (minimum three-week gap) to allow test-retest reliability to

be assessed. Participants will undergo a second psychological assessment 12 months after their deportation, during which only the SPWB will be administered. A translator will be employed for assessment of non-English speaking individuals.

Test Evaluation: Assessment of Reliability and Validity Reliability Evaluation The internal consistency of the modified CCAI will be evaluated by computing Cronbach’s alpha for each of the five subscales. Values of at least .70 are required to indicate acceptable internal reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). I will also assess testretest reliability by calculating the correlation between participants’ scores on the subscales across the two test administrations provided at least three weeks apart. High positive correlations for scores on each subscale across these two time points are predicted to confirm the new measure’s test-retest reliability. Validity Evaluation To assess the new test’s predictive validity (i.e., the extent to which modified CCAI scores predict success levels in cross-cultural adaptability), I will use individuals’ change in psychological well-being scores on the SPWB at the 12-month follow-up (compared to their initial SPWB score) as an external measure of cross-cultural adaptability. If valid, I predict that individuals’ scores on the modified CCAI will correlate highly and positively with change scores in psychological well-being on the SPWB at the 12-month follow-up. In addition, I will assess construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate whether test items are empirically grouped into the predicted five subscale structure, on the basis of their intercorrelations (Atkinson et al., 2011). If the predicted five-factor structure is supported, then fit indices will be consistent with this model, indicating test items do indeed represent these five independent constructs.

It should be noted that measures of the new test’s validity may be threatened by social desirability bias. It is in the interests of individuals who complete this test (i.e., noncitizens facing potential deportation) to answer in such a way as to lower their crosscultural adaptability score, to reduce the likelihood they will have their visa revoked and be removed from Australia. This limitation will be addressed by reducing the face validity of the modified CCAI items.

Conclusions Australian Governments and Courts acknowledge that visa cancellation and deportation from Australia can carry significant consequences, especially for non-citizens who have lived in Australia since infancy. However, as there is currently no standardised, valid and reliable measure that can gauge non-citizens’ psychological preparedness, decision-makers charged with determining visa cancellations are argued to be lacking key evidence. Developing a psychometrically sound measure to predict non-citizens’ crosscultural adaptability would provide decision-makers with necessary objective evidence on which to base these judgments. Use of this new measure is predicted to support a better balance between Australia’s two major deportation concerns: (1) the safety and security of its current citizens, by accurately informing removal of non-citizens who genuinely should be deported; and (2) fulfilling a national duty of care, by preventing deportation of noncitizens who would face significant psychological impediments if removed, which have historically included suicidal ideation and suicide.

References Ahmad, F., Shik, A., Vanza, R., Cheung, A. M., George, U., & Stewart, D. E. (2005). Voices of South Asian women: Immigration and mental health. Women & Health, 40(4), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v40n04_07

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised user's manual. Multi-Health Systems. Asner-Self, K. K., & Marotta, S. A. (2005). Developmental indices among central American immigrants exposed to war‐related trauma: Clinical implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(2), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00593.x Atfield, C. (2015, December 12). ‘I thought I was Australian’: Brisbane man on his deportation to Chile. Brisbane Times. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/i-thought-i-wasaustralianbrisbane-man-on-his-deportation-to-chile-20151212-glm26s.html Atkinson, T. M., Rosenfeld, B. D., Sit, L., Mendoza, T. R., Fruscione, M., Lavene, D., Shaw, M., Li, Y., Hay, J., Cleeland, C. S., Scher, H. I., Breitbart, W. S., & Basch, E. (2011). Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41(3), 558565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.05.008 Bennett, L. (2018, July 17). Deportations: Concern over review of Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal powers. NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12089967 Billings, P. (2018). Regulating crimmigrants through the ‘character test’: Exploring the consequences of mandatory visa cancellation for the fundamental rights of non-

citizens in Australia. Crime, Law and Social Change, 71(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-018-9786-7 Coyle, I., & Keyzer, P. (2016). The removal of convicted noncitizens from Australia: Is there only a ‘minimal and remote’ chance of getting it right? Alternative Law Journal, 41(2), 86-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1604100203 Dajani, K. G. (2018). Cultural dislocation and ego functions: Some considerations in the analysis of bi‐cultural patients. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 15(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1562 Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2006). A factor analytic study of the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 318330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278571 De Maio, F. G., & Kemp, E. (2010). The deterioration of health status among immigrants to Canada. Global Public Health, 5(...