Abstract
Addressing social inequity and increasing intercultural competence is a critical challenge in the 21st century. This work should be informed by rigorous, scientifically grounded research, accurate interpretations of that research, and the implementation of policies and training that are based upon the integrity of such research efforts. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), because of its psychometric integrity, is one such assessment tool that is used to pursue these challenges in higher education. The psychometric integrity of the IDI is unequivocally situated within the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 2014. American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and the National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]). Punti and Dingel assert that the IDI is not valid specifically for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) university students because it does not take into account the experience of being a minority/ethnic group member vis-à-vis racism and inequality. It is troubling that Punti and Dingel’s critique (1) is based on their use of an interview methodology that does not comport with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and (2) ignores the scientific evidence supporting the cross-cultural validity of the IDI with BIPOC.
Highlights
Punti and Dingel critique the validity of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), asserting that the IDI is not generalizable to BIPOC because it does not take into account the experience of being a minority/ethnic group member vis-à-vis racism and inequality
It is troubling that Punti and Dingel’s critique (1) is based on their use of an interview methodology that does not comport with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and (2) ignores the scientific evidence supporting the cross-cultural validity of the IDI with BIPOC
Punti and Dingel further state that, “in sum, that the IDI has not been validated for BIPOC in the U.S means that the experiences of BIPOC with racial inequality are not factored into the assessment, which potentially results in a white- or Eurocentric bias that downplays the role of racism in the daily lives of these individuals” [1]
Summary
Punti and Dingel (hereafter may be referred to as the authors) critique the validity of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), asserting that the IDI is not generalizable to BIPOC because it does not take into account the experience of being a minority/ethnic group member vis-à-vis racism and inequality. I will show that (1) Punti and Dingel’s interview methodology is considerably flawed and their interpretations and conclusions are based upon conjecture and overgeneralization; and (2) the authors’ critique ignores the scientific evidence supporting the cross-cultural validity and reliability of the IDI across. 218,111 international and domestically diverse respondents, along with additional testing undertaken with 20,015 respondents who self-reported that they were members of an ethnic minority, which speaks to the validity of the IDI with respect to BIPOC students
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
