Measuring Cultural Intelligence :

Measuring Cultural Intelligence : Psychometric Evaluation of the Cultural Intelligence Scale with a Military Sample in the Canadian Armed Forces By Damian F. O Keefe, David Y. Bourgeois & Karen D. Davis Military personnel are often deployed to foreign countries on short notice and are expected to quickly forge collaborative relationships in a multi-national environment. In more favourable situations, personnel will operate in an atmosphere of peace working alongside cooperative partners. Other times, they may be mired in difficult situations where one is tasked to manage a minor disagreement between opposing groups or even to prevent the outbreak of armed conflict between groups. Regardless of the perceived situational ease, it is apparent that cultural intelligence is critically important to the operational effectiveness of multi-national organizations and has been the topic of interest for many researchers. 1 Why is it that some people thrive in these intercultural settings while others struggle? Do the former possess some skill, ability or trait that is absent or less pronounced in the latter group? Many in the business world and organizational research believe that those who perform well in intercultural settings are displaying cultural intelligence. 2 Cultural intelligence (CQ) is a meta-competency which identifies key competencies, attributes, and skills that contribute to the ability to effectively interact, adapt and make effective decisions within unfamiliar, and often complex and diverse cultural environments (Ang et al., 2007). In recent years, researchers have investigated the usefulness of CQ to better prepare military personnel for overseas employment, 3 and the role of CQ in peacekeeping operations, 4 and military operations. 5 Cultural intelligence has been operationalized in the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). Originally developed and validated through administration to business school undergraduates and working professionals in Singapore and the US, the Cultural Intelligence Scale has since been administered in several countries, but not with military personnel. The current research reports on the psychometric evaluation of the English version of the CQS with a sample of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, which includes an investigation of differences on the CQS on the basis of first official language (FOL), rank level (Officers and Non-commissioned members), and education level (high school versus university graduates). The authors wish to thank James E. Cameron for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. 1 Cf. Ang et al., 2007 ; Ford, Winton & Davis, 2009 ; Korabik, Oliver & Kondratuk, 2009. 2 Earley & Mosakowski, 2004 ; Alon & Higgins, 2005. 3 Davis, 2009 ; Ford, Winton & Davis, 2009 ; Korabik, Oliver & Kondratuk, 2009. 4 Seiler, 2007 ; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne & Annen, 2011. 5 Ng, Ramaya, Teo & Wong, 2005. Published/ publié in Res Militaris (http://resmilitaris.net), vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 2 Cultural Intelligence Ang, Van Dyne and Tan (2011) describe a confluence of phenomena at the turn of the 21 st century that served as the backdrop for the emergence of cultural intelligence as a research construct : globalization on the one hand and the proliferation of ethnic conflicts and tensions around the globe on the other. They also noted that paradoxically, as an increase in globalization can lead to increased intergroup interactions, it may thus increase the likelihood of intergroup conflicts and tensions. Within this context, it seemed obvious that there would be an interest in gauging the degree to which individuals easily and effectively adapt their views and behaviors cross-culturally (Ang et al., 2011, p.582). The more cultural competency is displayed, the more positive the intercultural interactions may be and vice-versa. It became clear that there was an absence of constructs to adequately explain cultural competency, thus paving the way for cultural intelligence, a cleaner construct that assesses multiple aspects of intercultural competence based on a theoretically grounded, comprehensive, and coherent framework (ibid., p.583). Like emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and practical intelligence, cultural intelligence is conceptualized as a non-academic intelligence : a real world intelligence (Ang et al., 2011). Although classified under the same non-academic category, cultural and emotional intelligence are different. Emotional intelligence shares some attributes with CQ such as the idea that intelligence is multidimensional and involves both behavioural and cognitive facets. However, although emotional intelligence may be meaningful within one specific cultural setting, it may not apply in another. For example, social skills developed in one country may be ineffective in another culture with different rules for social interaction. CQ, on the other hand, allows someone to function effectively in culturally diverse settings. 6 Applying Sternberg s (1985) multiple-loci of intelligence, Ang and colleagues (2007) postulated that CQ comprises four unique facets that may or may not correlate with each other metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural. Metacognitive CQ reflects mental processes that individuals use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge. Cognitive CQ reflects knowledge of the norms, practices and conventions in different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences. Motivational CQ reflects the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences. Behavioural CQ reflects the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures. 7 A key factor in cultural intelligence is self-efficacy, in that people high in cultural intelligence are able to persevere in the face of challenges, particularly as it relates to new environments (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). 6 Earley & Mosakowski, 2004 ; Thomas, 2006. 7 Ang et al., 2007 ; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008 ; Ng & Earley, 2006.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 3 Ang et al. (2007) operationalized CQ using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). The CQS is a 20-item scale that was developed using a sample of Singapore undergraduate students and cross-validated using a sample of US undergraduates, and working adults holding executive and professional jobs. Initial model fit for the four-factor CQ model with a Singapore sample was good : fit indices were greater than.90 and error indices less than.08, while item-total correlations ranged from.47 to.71, and scale score reliabilities for all four facet scales were greater than.70. Cross-validation studies using another Singapore sample, and a US sample revealed similar results, suggesting that the CQS was a psychometrically strong measure of cultural intelligence and can be generalized across time and cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003 ; Ang et al., 2007). Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2008), using a multitrait-multimethod approach (Campbell & Fiske, 1986) with a sample of US MBA students showed that the CQS was valid across methods of assessment (self-rating and observer ratings). Internal consistency reliability for both methods were greater than.79, and correlations between self-rating and peer-ratings for all four CQ scales were greater than.41, indicating convergent validity. Moreover, these correlations were higher than correlations between difference CQ scales across methods, proving evidence of discriminant validity. These results were confirmed with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), using the correlated trait-correlated method model (Marsh & Grayson, 1995). Research investigating antecedents and outcomes of CQ report several interesting findings. In a study to determine what leads to higher levels of CQ, Crowne (2008) found that exposure to other cultures (through education and employment abroad) increases cultural intelligence. Kim and Van Dyne (2012) provide a more refined picture by showing how CQ serves to mediate the relationship between prior intercultural contact and one s international leadership potential. They further underscore how this relationship between past experience and future potential is stronger among majority members than minorities. Other research (Templer, Tay & Chendraseker, 2006) reported that Motivational CQ was significantly correlated with several aspects of cross cultural adjustment (i.e., work, general and social interaction), and these correlations were consistent while controlling for gender, age, time in country, and previous foreign assignments. Van Dyne et al. (2008) found that self-rated and peer-rated Behavioural and Motivational CQ predicted interactional adjustment (i.e., cultural adaptation), while controlling for sex and cross-cultural experience. In a study by Chen, Liu and Portnoy (2011), cultural adjustment and intercultural negotiation skills were linked to those high in motivational CQ. The authors then presented results where realtors higher in motivational CQ achieved more cultural sales ( sales between people of different cultural heritages, p.3) than realtors with low motivational CQ scores. In 2010, Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh and Tangirala established the predictive value of motivational cultural intelligence on both work performance and cultural adjustments among expatriates. Imai and Gelfand (2010) found that individuals higher in overall CQ were more cooperative and had a greater desire to understand their surroundings compared with individuals who score lower in CQ.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 4 In a large-scale study using Singaporean and US samples, Ang and colleagues (2007) reported a significant and positive correlation between Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Motivational CQ and cultural judgment and decision-making (i.e., human information processes for making decisions). As well, Metacognitive, Motivational, and Behavioural CQ were correlated with interactional adjustment (i.e., cultural adaptation), and task performance (i.e., supervisor rating of performance). Note that none of the CQ facets were correlated with general cognitive ability (using the Wonderlic Personnel Test). There is some research suggesting that although CQ is correlated with some occupational personality factors, it is conceptually different (i.e., CQ is a state variable, while occupational personality is a trait variable). In one study, Ang, Van Dyne and Koh (2006) reported significant correlations between all four facets of CQ and Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Openness. Metacognitive and Motivational CQ were significantly correlated with Conscientiousness, and Motivational CQ was correlated with emotional stability. Ang et al. (2007) reported similar but not identical results with significant correlations between all four CQ facets and Conscientiousness and Openness, while Metacognitive and Motivational CQ were related to Extraversion, and Metacognitive CQ alone was related to emotional stability. These results suggest that CQ is related to occupational personality, particularly the Openness factor, but the correlation coefficients were small to moderate (.15 to.38), suggesting discriminant validity between the fourfactor model of CQ and the Big Five personality factors. Thus, there is value in differentiating between facets of personality and facets of CQ. Although gaining in popularity as a construct and now being applied to various settings (Ang et al., 2011 ; Rockstuhl et al., 2011), the scale used to measure cultural intelligence has only been validated using samples from a limited number of cultural groups. To expand validation efforts, the current research uses Principle Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess the dimensionality, and Cronbach alpha coefficients and item-total correlations to assess the reliability of the CQS with a sample of 893 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members. We chose to focus our research on CAF members, because military personnel are often deployed to various countries around the world where the culture can be quite different from that of their home country. Moreover, deployed CAF personnel at all rank levels (from Private to General) are required to deal with people from different cultures on a daily basis, thus highlighting the importance of cultural intelligence for all military personnel, regardless of rank level. As well, we investigated differences on the CQS on the basis of First Official Language (FOL), rank level, and education level. Ang et al. (2011) reported that individual language skills are positively related to levels of cultural intelligence ; however, as indicated by DeWitt and Adams (2012), to date, the relationship between language and CQ is inconclusive because language has been operationalized in a very limited way in the research, and often has been treated as a secondary interest. As discussed above, some research has also found that higher levels of CQ were related to exposure to other cultures

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 5 (Crowne 2008 ; Templer et al., 2006). Given that the CQS was completed in English, it could be argued that CAF personnel whose FOL is French have exposure to both French and English cultures, and thus may have higher CQ. We investigated differences on the CQS on the basis of rank level and education level based on the finding that higher levels CQ was related to education of other cultures (Crowne, 2008). All CAF Officers are required to have a university degree, while non-commissioned members (NCMs) are required to be high school graduates. Thus, it could be argued that because Officers have higher education than NCMs, there could be a difference in the level of CQ between these groups. Rocksthul et al. (2011) also underlined the importance of cultural intelligence in leadership positions working in cross-border environments, thus we were interested in investigating whether military Officers scored higher in CQ compared to NCMs. Method Participants, Procedures and Material The CQS was administered as part of the 2009 CAF Your Say survey. The purpose of the Your Say survey is to measure attitudes, circumstances and experiences of CAF members that senior leaders use to evaluate existing policies, procedures and programmes. The survey was administered via the CAF email system to a random sample of 3000 CAF personnel. One hundred and forty-eight surveys were undeliverable, thus reducing the sample to 2852. Respondents were informed that the survey was anonymous, the results were confidential, and completion of the survey, or any part of it, was voluntary. Of 2852 surveys administered, 893 were returned for a response rate of 31%. Note that this response rate is relatively low compared to other published studies (e.g., 58% as reported by Chen et al., 2011). There are two possible reasons for the low response rate. First, given the Canadian government s commitment to Afghanistan, the CAF has been in a high operational tempo and thus soldiers may not have had the time to complete the survey. Secondly, in recent years, CAF personnel have been inundated with surveys dealing with a variety of personnel and social issues and are experiencing what some Commanders describe as survey fatigue, and as such some personnel have little motivation to complete a survey if they do not perceive a direct impact on their day-to-day work activities. However, this level of participation (31% of 2852) provides an overall margin of error of + 3 % at the 95% confidence level. That is, the results presented here should vary by no more than three percent, nineteen times out of twenty (Gower & Kelly, 1993). Of the 893 survey respondents, 775 respondents reported English as their first official language (FOL), 114 reported French, and four cases were missing data on language. One hundred and ninety-nine respondents were junior non-commissioned members (NCMs), 313 were senior NCMs, 163 were junior officers, and 218 were senior officers. Education level ranged from High School (N = 351), College (N = 163), University certificate (N = 34), Bachelor Degree (N = 210), University certificate higher than a bachelors level (N = 23), Masters Degree (N = 89), Medical Degree (N = 8), to a doctorate degree (N = 7),

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 6 with eight cases missing education data. Twenty-four respondents were in the 16-24 year category, 151 were in the 25-34 year category, 356 were in the 35-44 age bracket, and 362 were aged 45 or over. Seven hundred and forty-one respondents were male and 148 were female, with four cases missing data on gender. Respondents were asked to read each item and select one of seven responses (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree). The Metacognitive CQ scale consists of items such as I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interaction. The Cognitive CQ scale consists of items such as I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. The Motivational CQ scale consists of items such as I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. The Behavioural CQ scale consists of items such as I change my verbal behaviour (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. Table 1 (see Appendix, p.15) provides a complete list of the CQS items. Plan for Analysis A review of the histogram and boxplots for all items were conducted to assess for normality and extreme scores. T-tests were conducted to test for differences based on FOL. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to test the difference among rank level (i.e., Junior NCM, Senior NCM, Junior Officer, and Senior Officer) and education level, and post hoc analysis using Tukey s honestly significant difference (HSD) test was conducted for significant ANOVA results. Due to the large sample sizes, Cohen s medium effect size (d =.50) was used as a reference point in considering the practical significance between groups (Cohen, 1988). 8 Using a random sample of 449 from the original sample, the component structure of the CQS was analyzed by means of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) instead of Factor Analysis (FA), for two reasons. Firstly, PCA is a data reduction method which is aimed at identifying a small number of components that extracts maximum variance, and is a useful method to obtain an empirical summary of the data (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 1996). Secondly, as indicated by Tabachnick and Fiddell (2001), PCA is the solution of choice for the researcher who is primarily interested in reducing a large number of variables down to a smaller number of components (p.612), which was the goal in this research. Direct Oblimin rotation (using the pattern matrix and component correlation matrix) was resorted to in order to maximize the variance associated with each component and to achieve a simple structure, while allowing for correlations among factors (Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). Eigenvalues greater than one, and an analysis of the scree plot were used to determine the number of underlying components. Since Eigenvalues represent variance, and the variance that standardized variables contribute to principal components 8 Practical significance is the degree to which the null hypothesis is false (i.e., there appears to be a meaningful difference in the variables). The following formula was used to calculate effect size : d = 1.41t / n i : where n i = harmonic mean.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 7 extraction is 1, components with eigenvalues less that 1 are not as important, from a variance perspective, as an observed variable (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 1996). All variables with factor loadings less than.30 were suppressed, and rotated matrices were sorted by size for ease of interpretation. Using the other half of the sample (N = 443), the four-factor model gleaned using the PCA was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 19.0. Each of the facet items was allowed to load on only its associated factor and the factors were allowed to correlate. The covariance matrix for the 20 items was analyzed. The variance for each factor was fixed at 1.0 and parameter estimates were made under a maximum likelihood method. Several statistics were used to assess the extent to which the model fit the data : Chi-square analysis, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) with values greater than.90 and.95, respectively, indicative of an acceptable and excellent fit, and the Root Mean Square error of approximation (RMSEA) with values less than.05 reflecting a close fit, and between.05 and.08 reflecting a reasonable fit to the data. 9 To assess the reliability of the four-factor CQS, Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each facet, as well as the overall score, and item-total correlations were compared for the item-facet score and item-overall score. Cronbach s alpha greater than.70 and item-facet correlations greater than.40 were used as the acceptable level of homogeneity (Gliem & Gliem, 2003 ; Wenek, 1987). Results A review of the histogram for all items reveal that the Cognitive and Behavioural CQ items were normally distributed, but there was some negative skewness in the Metacognitive and Motivational CQ items. However, all skewness values were less than -1.00, and given the large sample size it is unlikely that the distribution of these items deviate enough from normality to make a substantive difference in the analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Principal Component Analysis Using a random sample of 449 from the original sample (N = 893), the component structure of the CQS was analyzed using PCA. Bartlett s test of sphericity (X 2 = 7459.17, df = 190, p <.001) suggests that the correlations between the 20 items were statistically different from zero, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) (measure of sampling) value of.93 suggests that the data were suitable to be used in PCA. Results of the PCA provided support for a 4-component solution, accounting for 77.73% of total variance. There was a clear delineation between the fourth and fifth components in terms of the eigenvalue (i.e., 1.42 versus.51), and scree plot, suggesting that four components is a suitable interpretation of the data. Table 1 presents the pattern 9 Cf. Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Tabachnick, & Fidell, 2001 ; Marsh, Hau & Wen, 2004 ; Sun, 2005.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 8 matrix and loadings in descending order of magnitude of the 4 components. Component 1 (eigenvalue = 9.73; α =.92, 95% confidence interval :.91 to.93) accounted for 48.65% of the total variance and consists of all five Motivational CQ items. Component 2 (eigenvalue = 2.76; α =.93, 95% confidence interval :.91 to.94) accounted for 13.81% of the variance and consists of all six Cognitive CQ items. Component 3 (eigenvalue = 1.63; α =.93, 95% confidence interval :.91 to.94) accounted for 8.18% of variance and consists of all four Metacognitive CQ items. Component 4 (eigenvalue = 1.42; α =.92, 95% confidence interval :.90 to.93) accounted for 7.05% of variance and consists of all five Behavioural CQ items. As indicated in the component correlation matrix (Table 2, p.15), the components were interrelated, but not to the degree where multicollinearity would be an issue. Indeed, while they are related, they also appear to measure distinct constructs. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using the other half of the original sample (N = 444), the four-factor model gleaned using the PCA was submitted to CFA using AMOS 19.0. Fourteen cases were removed from the data set due to missing data, resulting in a sample size of 430. Results of the CFA suggest that the four-factor model fit the data well (X 2 (164) = 426.40, p <.001; CFA =.96; RMSEA =.06; PCLOSE =.01). These results are similar to those reported in the literature (Ang et al., 2007 ; Earley & Ang, 2003), suggesting that the English version of the CQS is a valid measure of the four-facet model of CQ (as postulated by Earley & Ang, 2003) for use with the CAF population. Table 3 (see Appendix, p.16) presents the CFA standardized regression weights of items for the four-factor model of CQ. Reliability Analysis Table 4 (p.17) provides the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the four CQ facets and the overall CQ score, as well as the item-facet and item-overall score correlations for the complete sample (N = 893). Cronbach alphas for all four facets and the overall CQ score were high (greater than.90). All correlations for the item-facet and item-total score correlations exceeded the requirement for the acceptable level of homogeneity (.40). Indeed, all item-facet correlations were greater than.75, and all item-overall total correlations were greater than.49, and for each item, the item-facet correlation was higher than the item-total score correlation. These results are very similar to previous research (Ang et al., 2007 ; Earley & Ang, 2003), and suggest that the CQS has high internal consistency reliability at both the facet and overall total score level and is suitable for use with CAF personnel. Comparisons amongst Groups on the CQ Facet Scales Table 5 (Appendix, p.18) provides the means and standard deviations for the four CQ facets for the entire sample and for First Official Language (i.e., French or English), rank level, and gender. The only statistical significant difference between French and

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 9 English respondents was on the Cognitive CQ facet score (t = -2.00, p =.05, d =.20), with French respondents scoring higher than English respondents. This result is not surprising, given that some of the Cognitive CQ items deal with knowledge of another language (e.g., I know the rules [e.g., vocabulary, grammar] of other languages ). Also, because the French respondents completed the survey in English (their second official language), it should follow that they would score higher on an item that asks about their knowledge of another language, compared to English respondents who completed the survey in their first official language. However, the difference between English and French respondents on the Cognitive CQ facet did not meet the requirement for practical significance (according to Cohn s medium effect size). There was a statistically significant difference among rank level on the Cognitive CQ facet [F(3, 889) = 5.80, p =.001, partial eta 2 =.02]. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey s HSD test indicate that Junior NCMs (M = 3.67, SD = 1.29) and Senior NCMs (M = 3.68, SD = 1.28) were significantly lower than Junior Officers (M = 4.03, SD = 1.20) and Senior Officers (M = 4.03, SD = 1.23), suggesting that officers are more knowledgeable of the norms, practices and conventions in different cultures compared with NCMs. Differences among educational levels occurred on the Metacognitive CQ facet [F(7, 877) = 2.29, p =.026, partial eta 2 =.02], and Cognitive CQ facet, [F(7, 877) = 2.75, p =.008, partial eta 2 =.02]. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey s HSD test indicated no statistically significant difference on the Metacognitive CQ facet based on education level, but for the Cognitive CQ facet, High School graduates (M = 3.62, SD = 1.19) were significantly lower than respondents who reported having completed a Bachelor Degree (M = 4.01, SD = 1.16) and respondents who reported having completed a Master s Degree (M = 4.12, SD = 1.38). This result suggests that education may play a role in one s level of Cognitive CQ. For exploratory reasons, additional analyses were conducted to investigate differences on the CQ facets based on gender and age category. Differences occurred among males and females on the Metacognitive CQ facet (t = -2.14, p =.03, d =.20), and Motivational CQ facet (t = -1.97, p =.04, d =.17), with females scoring higher. However, none of these differences met the requirement for practical significance (according to Cohn s medium effect size).there were no statistically significant differences on any of the CQ facets on the basis of age category, suggesting that age is not a factor in one s level of CQ. Finally, all the CQ facets were significantly correlated with each other, with correlation coefficients ranging from.37 to.59, which suggests that although the facets are related to each other, they still differ enough to be considered separate constructs. Discussion and Conclusion This study suggests that the English version of the CQS is a psychometrically sound measure of cultural intelligence as postulated by Ang et al. (2007) and is suitable for use with the CAF population. Apart from some negative skewness, all items had strong

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 10 psychometric properties (i.e., Cronbach alpha greater than.90 ; item-total correlations greater than.49), and loaded significantly on their associated facets (in both the principal components and confirmatory factor analyses). There were no practically significant differences on any of the CQS scales on the basis of FOL. As stated in the results section, there was a statistical significant difference between French and English respondents on the Cognitive CQ facet score, with French respondents scoring higher than English respondents. As mentioned above, although this result is not surprising given that some of the Cognitive CQ items deal with knowledge of another language, the difference between English and French respondents on the Cognitive CQ facet did not meet the requirement for practical significance (according to Cohn s medium effect size). A limitation that could be levelled against this research is the unequal sample size of French (N = 114) and English (N = 775) respondents, which it could be argued violates an assumption in t-tests. However, as stated by Pedhazur and Pedhazur-Schmelkin (1991) in non-experimental research, unequal samples from different populations do not pose a threat to the validity of the study as long as appropriate sampling procedures are followed, which was the case in this study. Indeed, it could be argued that the sample sizes reflect the true difference in the numbers of bilingual Francophone and unilingual Anglophone personnel in the CAF, and to equalize the numbers (i.e., select 114 English personnel) might distort the differences and lose the generalizability of the findings (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). As well, Levine s test for equality of variances was not significant, thus meeting the assumption of homogeneity of variance and suggesting that the distribution of CQS scale scores for French and English respondents is similar. There was a statistically significant difference between Officers and NCMs on the Cognitive CQ scale, suggesting that CAF Officers are more knowledgeable in the norms, practices and conventions in different cultures compared to NCMs. Note that there was also a significant difference on Cognitive CQ on the basis of education level, with high school graduates scoring lower than university graduates. As indicated earlier, CAF Officers are required to have completed a university degree, while NCMs are required to have completed high school. Thus, it is difficult to say at this point whether the differences between Officers and NCMs on Cognitive CQ were due to rank level or to education level. Future research to further investigate the nature of the difference between Officers and NCMs on Cognitive CQ is recommended. Note that there were no statistically significant differences in CQ facet scores on the basis of gender or age category, suggesting that men and women do not differ in their levels of cultural intelligence, and that cultural intelligence is not a function of one s age. Also note that in this study, we used cross-sectional data to analyze the psychometric properties of the CQS, and therefore the results cannot be generalized across time. In recent years, there are an increasing number of calls for longitudinal research in

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 11 organizations (e.g., Kelloway & Francis, 2012). Thus, future research with Canadian samples should focus on longitudinal studies of cultural intelligence. Regarding the direction of future research, Ang and colleagues (2011) highlight the importance of investigating personal attributes such as biculturalism and ethnocentrism as possible antecedents of cultural intelligence. They also report that individuals language skills are positively correlated with their levels of cultural intelligence. Indeed, this study showed that bilingual respondents scored higher on the Cognitive CQ scale ; however, this difference did not meet practical significance. Keeping in mind the need to further explore the link between cultural intelligence, cultural dimensions of one s identity (Davis, 2012) and one s language skills (DeWitt & Adams, 2012), it seems apparent that an ideal population from which to test these associations would be the great number of Canadians who declare themselves to be bilingual. For example, the 2011 Canadian census revealed that 17.5% of Canadians were able to conduct a conversation in both official languages (Statistics Canada, 2012), and this value compares with the number of functionally bilingual Canadian Armed Forces members, which is estimated at 22% (Annual Report on Regular Force Personnel, 2010). In another line of research, Rockstuhl et al. (2011) underlined the importance of cultural intelligence for those in leadership positions working in cross-border environments. This study found that officers scored higher on Cognitive CQ compared to noncommissioned members. Presumably, the skill set required to function effectively in situations where one must deal with different groups of people with contrasting economic, political, and cultural practices (p.286), may be different than the leadership needed in more homogeneous environments. The findings of Rockstuhl et al. (2011) parallel those of Groves and Feyerherm (2009) that showed a leader s CQ to be a critical predictor of group performance in culturally diverse team settings while it had less bearing in more homogenous work environments. Indeed, it may be useful to test the predictive value of cultural intelligence and cultural identity variables on leadership outcomes among those serving in cross-border contexts. With close to 40 armed conflicts in 30 different locations recorded around the world in recent years (Themnér & Wallensteen, 2012), investigating the relationship between cultural intelligence and leadership in cross-border environments and their role in conflict resolution is a worthy pursuit. References ALON, I. & J.M. HIGGINS, Global Leadership Success through Emotional and Cultural Intelligences, Business Horizons, vol.48, 2005, pp.501-512. ANG, S. & L. VAN DYNE, Conceptualization of Cultural Intelligence : Definition, Distinctiveness, and Nomological Network, pp.3-15 in S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence : Theory, Measurement, and Applications, New York, M.E. Sharpe, 2008. ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE & C. KOH, Personality Correlates of the Four-Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence, Group & Organization Management, vol.31, n 1, 2006.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 12 ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE & M.L. TAN, Cultural Intelligence, pp.582-602 in R.J. Sternberg & S.B. Kaufman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2011. ANG, S., L. VAN DYNE, C. KOH, K.L. NG, K.J. TEMPLER, C. TAY & N.A. CHANDRASEKAR, Cultural Intelligence : Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision-Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance, Management & Organization Review, vol.3, n 3, 2007, pp.335-371 : doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x. ANONYMOUS, Annual Report on Regular Force Personnel 2008/2009, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, ON, 2010. CAMPBELL, D.T. & D.W. FISKE, Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, vol.56, 1959, pp.81-105. CHEN, G., B.L. KIRKMAN, K. KIM, C.I. FARH & S. TANGIRALA, When Does Cross-Cultural Motivation Enhance Expatriate Effectiveness? A Multilevel Investigation of the Moderating Roles of Subsidiary Support and Cultural Distance, Academy of Management Journal, vol.53, 2010, pp.1110-1130. CHEN, X-P., D. LIU & R. PORTNOY, A Multilevel Investigation of Motivational Cultural Intelligence, Organizational Diversity Climate, and Cultural Sales : Evidence from U.S. Real Estate Firms, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.97, 2011, pp. 93-106. COHEN, Jacob, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988, 2 nd edition. CROWNE, K.A., What Leads to Cultural Intelligence?, Business Horizons, vol.51, 2008, pp.391-399. DAVIS, Karen D. (ed.), Cultural Intelligence and Leadership : An Introduction for Canadian Forces Leaders, Kingston, ON, Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2009. DAVIS, Karen D., Cultural Intelligence and Military Identity : Implications for Canadian Forces Leader Development. Ottawa, ON, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, and Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2012. DEWIT, Y. & B. ADAMS, The Impact of Language Knowledge and Ability on the Development of Cultural Intelligence : Concepts, Relationships, and Measures, Guelph, ON, Humansystems Inc./ Ottawa, ON, Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis/ Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2012. EARLEY, P.C. & E. MOSAKOWSKI, Cultural Intelligence, Harvard Business Review, October 2004. EARLEY, P.C. & S. ANG, Cultural Intelligence : Individual Interactions across Cultures, Palo Alto, CA, Standford University Press, 2003. FORD, K.-A., S.E. WINTON & K.D. DAVIS, Measuring Cultural Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence : An Annotated Bibliography, Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute and Defence Research and Development, 2009. GLIEM, J.A. & R.R. GLIEM, Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales, Conference paper, Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference, Ohio State University, Columbus OH, October 2003. GOWER, A. & K. KELLY, How Big Should the Sample Be?, Social Survey Methods Division, Ottawa, ON, Statistics Canada, 1993. GROVES, K.S. & A.E. FEYERHERM, Leader Cultural Intelligence in Context : Testing the Moderating Effects of Team Cultural Diversity on Leader and Team Performance, Group & Organization Management, vol.36, 2009, pp.535 566. GUDYKUNST, W.B., Bridging Differences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2004 (4 th ed.). HU, L. & P.M. BENTLER, Cut-Off Criteria for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis : Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, vol.6, 1999, pp.1-55.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 13 IMAI, L. & M.J. GELFAND, The Culturally Intelligent Negotiator : The impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Negotiation Sequences and Outcomes, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, vol.111, 2010, pp.83-98. KELLOWAY, E.K. & L. FRANCIS, Longitudinal Research Methods, in M. Wang, R. Sinclair & L. Tetrick. Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology, New York, Routledge, 2012. KIM, Y.J. & L. VAN DYNE, Cultural Intelligence and International Leadership Potential : The Importance of Contact for Members of the Majority, Applied Psychology : An International Review, vol.61, 2012, pp.272-294. KORABIK, K., T. OLIVER & T. KONDRATUCK, Cultural Intelligence, 360 Feedback, and Development of Self-Awareness among Canadian Forces Leaders, Kingston, ON, Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2009. MARSH, H.W. & D. GRAYSON, Latent-Variable Models of Multitrait-Multimethod Data, pp.177-198 in R.H. Hoyle (ed.), Structural Equation Modeling : Concepts, Issues, and Application, London, Sage, 1995. MARSH, H.W., K.T. HAU & Z. WEN, In Search of Golden Rules : Comment on Hypothesis Testing Approaches to Setting Cut-Off Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralising Hu & Bentler s (1999) Findings, Structural Equation Modeling, vol.11, 2004, pp.320-341. NG, K.Y. & P.C. EARLEY, Culture + Intelligence : Old Constructs, New Frontiers, Group Organization Management, vol.31, n 4, 2006. DOI : 10.1177/1059601105275251. NG, K.Y., R. RAMAYA, T.M.S. TEO & S.K. WONG, Cultural Intelligence : Its Potential for Military Leadership Development, paper presented at the 47th International Military Testing Association, Singapore, 2005. PEDHAZUR, E.J. & L.P. PEDHAZUR-SCHMELKIN, Measurement, Design and Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, 1991. ROCKSTUHL,T., S. SEILER, S. ANG, L. VAN DYNE & H. ANNEN, Beyond General Intelligence (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence (EQ) : The Role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Cross-Border Leadership Effectiveness in a Globalized World, Journal of Social Issues, vol.67, 2011, pp.825-840. SEILER, S., Determining Factors of Intercultural Leadership A Theoretical Framework, in C.M. Coops & T.S. Tresch (eds.), Cultural Challenges in Military Operations, Rome, NATO Defense College, 2007. STATISTICS CANADA, Linguistic Characteristics of Canadians : Language, 2011 Census of Population, 2012 (Catalogue n 98-314-X2011001). Retrieved January 23, 2013 from Statistics Canada : http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011001-eng.pdf. STERNBERG, R.J. & R.J. WAGNER, Practical Intelligence, pp.380-395 in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000. STERNBERG, R.J., Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1985. STOKES, G.S., M.D. MUMFORD & W.A. OWENS, Biodata Handbook : Theory, Research, and Use of Biographical Information in Selection and Performance Prediction, Palo Alto, CA, CPP Books, 1994. SUN, J., Assessing Goodness of Fit Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Measurement & Evaluation in Counselling & Development, vol.37, 2005, pp.240-256. TABACHNICK, B.G. & L.S. FIDELL, Using Multivariate Statistics, New York, Harper Collins, 1996, 2 nd edition 2001. TEMPLER, K.J., C. Tay & N.A. CHENDRASEKER, Motivational Cultural Intelligence, Realistic Job Preview, Realistic Living Conditions Preview, and Cross-Cultural Adjustment, Group & Organization Management, vol.31, n 1, 2006, pp.154-173 : doi 10.1177/1059601105275293. THEMNÉR, L. & P. WALLENSTEEN, Armed Conflicts, 1946 2011, Journal of Peace Research, vol.49, 2012, pp.565-575.

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 14 THOMAS, D.C., Domain and Development of Cultural Intelligence : The Importance of Mindfulness, Group Organization Management, vol.31, n 1, 2006, pp.78-99. Doi : 10.1177/1059601105275266. VAN DYNE, L., S. ANG & C. KOH, Development and Validation of the CQS : The Cultural Intelligence Scale, pp.16-38 in S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence : Theory, Measurement, and Applications, New York, M.E. Sharpe, 2008. WENEK, C., CFPARU Procedural Guide for the Psychometric Analysis of Selection Tests and for the Detection of Test Bias, Note 11/87, Willowdale, ON, Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit. Technical, 1987. Appendix Table 1 : Rotated Pattern Matrix for the Item of the CQS CQS Item MOT4 - I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me..88 MOT3 - I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that.86 is new to me. MOT5 - I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping.86 conditions in a different culture. MOT1 - I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures..82 MOT2 - I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is.80 unfamiliar to me. COG4 - I know the marriage systems of other cultures..93 COG6 - I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviours in other.86 cultures. COG5 - I know the arts and crafts of other cultures..83 COG2 - I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages..82 COG3 - I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures..81 COG1 - I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures..75 MC2 - I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me MC3 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. MC1 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. MC4 - I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. BEH5 - I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. BEH4 - I change my non-verbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it. BEH2 - I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. BEH1 - I change my verbal behaviour (e.g., accent, tone) when a crosscultural interaction requires it. BEH3 - I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. Components 1 2 3 4 Note : COG = Cognitive CQ; MOT = Motivational CQ; BEH = Behavioural CQ; MC = Metacognitive CQ. Cultural Intelligence Center 2005. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center. Note. Use of this scale granted to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to cquery@culturalq.com..92.91.88.80.95.88.83.69.66

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 15 Table 2 : PCA Component Correlation Matrix MOT COG.34 MOT COG MC MC.47.44 BEH.55.39.49 Note: COG = Cognitive CQ; MOT = Motivational CQ ; BEH = Behavioural CQ ; MC = Metacognitive CQ. Table 3 : Standardized Regression Weights for the items of the CQS CQS Item Standardized Regression Weight Metacognitive CQ I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures..88.88.93.82 Cognitive CQ: I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures..79 I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages..69 I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures..86 I know the marriage systems of other cultures..90 I know the arts and crafts of other cultures..83 I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviours in other cultures..89 Motivational CQ I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures..81 I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me..85 I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture..85.84.84

Res Militaris, vol.7, n 1, Winter-Spring/ Hiver-Printemps 2017 16 Behavioural CQ I change my verbal behaviour (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it..82 I change my non-verbal behaviour when a cross-cultural situation requires it. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it..78 Cultural Intelligence Center 2005. Used by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center. Note. Use of this scale granted to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to cquery@culturalq.com..82.88.89 CQS Item Table 4 : Cronbach Alpha, Item-Facet and Item-Total Correlations for the CQS Metacognitive CQ (α =.92, 95% confidence interval :.90 to.92) MC1 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. MC2 - I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. MC3 - I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to crosscultural interactions. Item-Facet Correlation Item-Total Correlation.82.65.83.64.87.67 MC4 - I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as.76.67 I interact with people from different cultures. Cognitive CQ (α =.92, 95% confidence interval:.91 to.93) COG1 - I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures..74.64 COG2 - I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. COG3 - I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures..66.49.80.67 COG4 - I know the marriage systems of other cultures..85.65 COG5 - I know the arts and crafts of other cultures..79.62 COG6 - I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviours in other cultures. Motivational CQ (α =.91, 95% confidence interval:.90 to.92).82.68 MOT1 - I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures..75.58 MOT2 - I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture.79.64 that is unfamiliar to me. MOT3 - I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me..80.61 MOT4 - I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me..78.62 MOT5 - I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture..77.61