Search

Background It is unknown how much variation in adult mental health problems is associated with differences between societal/cultural groups, over and above differences between individuals. Methods To test these relative contributions, a consortium of indigenous researchers collected Adult Self-Report (ASR) ratings from 16 906 18- to 59-year-olds in 28 societies that represented seven culture clusters identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study (e.g. Confucian, Anglo). The ASR is scored on 17 problem scales, plus a personal strengths scale. Hierarchical linear modeling estimated variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. Multi-level analyses of covariance tested age and gender effects. Results Across the 17 problem scales, the variance accounted for by individual differences ranged from 80.3% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems to 95.2% for DSM-oriented avoidant personality (mean = 90.7%); by society: 3.2% for DSM-oriented somatic problems to 8.0% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems (mean = 6.3%); and by culture cluster: 0.0% for DSM-oriented avoidant personality to 11.6% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems (mean = 3.0%). For strengths, individual differences accounted for 80.8% of variance, societal differences 10.5%, and cultural differences 8.7%. Age and gender had very small effects. Conclusions Overall, adults' self-ratings of mental health problems and strengths were associated much more with individual differences than societal/cultural differences, although this varied across scales. These findings support cross-cultural use of standardized measures to assess mental health problems, but urge caution in assessment of personal strengths.

Fil: Ivanova, Masha Y. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: Achenbach, Thomas M. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: Rescorla, Leslie A. Bryn Mawr College. Department of Psychology; Estados Unidos Fil: Tumer, Lori V. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: Ahmeti-Pronaj, Adelina. University Clinical Center of Kosova. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Kosovo Fil: Au, Alma. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Department of Applied Social Sciences; China Fil: Maese, Carmen Ávila. El Colegio de Chihuahua; México Fil: Bellina, Mónica. Eugenio Medea Scientific Institute. Department of Child Psychiatry; Italia Fil: Caldas, J. Carlos. Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde. Departamento de Ciências Sociais e do Comportamento; Brasil Fil: Chen, Yi Chuen. National Chung Cheng University. Department of Psychology; Taiwan Fil: Csemy, Ladislav. Laboratory of Social Psychiatry. Prague Psychiatric Centre; República Checa Fil: da Rocha, Marina M. University Paulista. Institute of Human Sciences; Brasil Fil: Decoster, Jeroen. Ghent University. Department of Personnel Management, Work, and Organizational Psychology; Bélgica Fil: Dobrean, Anca. Babes-Bolyai University; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy; Rumania Fil: Ezpeleta, Lourdes. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Departament de Psicologia Clinica i de la Salut; España Fil: Fontaine, Johnny R. J. Ghent University. Department of Personnel Management, Work, and Organizational Psychology; Bélgica Fil: Funabiki, Yasuko. Kyoto University Hospital. Department of Psychiatry; Japón Fil: Gudmundsson, Halldór S. University of Iceland. Faculty of Social Work; Islandia Fil: Harder, Valerie S. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: de la Cabada, Marie Leiner. Texas Tech University Health Sciences. Department of Pediatrics; Estados Unidos Fil: Leung, Patrick. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Department of Psychology; China Fil: Liu, Jianghong. University of Pennsylvania. School of Nursing and Medicine; Estados Unidos Fil: Mahr, Safia. Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense. Laboratoire EVACLIPSY. Departement de Psychologie; Francia Fil: Malykh, Sergey. Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education; Rusia Fil: Maras, Jelena Srdanovic. Clinical Center of Vojvodina; Serbia Fil: Marković, Jasminka. University of Novi Sad. Medical Faculty Novi Sad, Clinical Center of Vojvodina; Serbia Fil: Ndetei, David M. Africa Mental Health Foundation; Kenia Fil: Oh, Kyung Ja. Yonsei University. Department of Psychology; Corea del Sur Fil: Petot, Jean-Michel. Université de Paris Ouest. Laboratoire EVACLIPSY. Departement de Psychologie; Francia Fil: Riad, Geylan. Helwan University; Egipto Fil: Sakarya, Direnc. Ankara University. Faculty of Medicine. Department of Psychiatry; Turquía Fil: Samaniego, Virginia Corina. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Psicología y Psicopedagogía; Argentina Fil: Sebre, Sandra. University of Latvia. Department of Psychology; Letonia Fil: Shahini, Mimoza. University Clinical Center of Kosova. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Kosovo Fil: Silvares, Edwiges Ferreira de Mattos. University of São Paulo. Instituto de Psicologia; Brasil Fil: Šimulionienė, Roma. Klaipeda University. Department of Psychology; Lituania Fil: Sokoli, Elvisa. University of Tirana. Department of Psychology; Albania Fil: Aston University. School of Life and Health Sciences. Aston Brain Centre; Inglaterra Fil: Vázquez, Natalia. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Psicología y Psicopedagogía; Argentina Fil: Zasępa, Ewa. The Maria Grzegorzewska Academy of Special Education; Polonia Abstract: This study tested the multi-society generalizability of an eight-syndrome assessment model derived from factor analyses of American adults' self-ratings of 120 behavioral, emotional, and social problems. The Adult Self-Report (ASR; Achenbach and Rescorla 2003) was completed by 17,152 18-59-year-olds in 29 societies. Confirmatory factor analyses tested the fit of self-ratings in each sample to the eight-syndrome model. The primary model fit index (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) showed good model fit for all samples, while secondary indices showed acceptable to good fit. Only 5 (0.06%) of the 8,598 estimated parameters were outside the admissible parameter space. Confidence intervals indicated that sampling fluctuations could account for the deviant parameters. Results thus supported the tested model in societies differing widely in social, political, and economic systems, languages, ethnicities, religions, and geographical regions. Although other items, societies, and analytic methods might yield different results, the findings indicate that adults in very diverse societies were willing and able to rate themselves on the same standardized set of 120 problem items. Moreover, their self-ratings fit an eight-syndrome model previously derived from self-ratings by American adults. The support for the statistically derived syndrome model is consistent with previous findings for parent, teacher, and self-ratings of 1½-18-year-olds in many societies. The ASR and its parallel collateral-report instrument, the Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL), may offer mental health professionals practical tools for the multi-informant assessment of clinical constructs of adult psychopathology that appear to be meaningful across diverse societies.

This study tested societal effects on caregiver/teacher ratings of behavioral/emotional problems for 10,521 preschoolers from 15 societies. Many societies had problem scale scores within a relatively narrow range, despite differences in language, culture, and other characteristics. The small age and gender effects were quite similar across societies. The rank orders of mean item ratings were similar across diverse societies. For 7,380 children from 13 societies, ratings were also obtained from a parent. In all 13 societies, mean Total Problems scores derived from parent ratings were significantly higher than mean Total Problems scores derived from caregiver/teacher ratings, although the size of the difference varied somewhat across societies. Mean cross-informant agreement for problem scale scores varied across societies. Societies were very similar with respect to which problem items, on average, received high versus low ratings from parents and caregivers/teachers. Within every society, cross-informant agreement for item ratings varied widely across children. In most respects, results were quite similar across 15 very diverse societies.