Cultural Bias Research
Some of the most frequently encountered examples of cultural bias that emerge in multicultural counseling and development are the assumptions described in the areas of normal behavior, individualism, limits of academic disciplines, dependence on abstract words, independence, client support systems, linear thinking, change, and history.
However the basis for the development of targeted group-specific interventions are the quick accumulation of evidence that shows ethnic and/or racial groups differ in terms of their cultural values, norms, expectancies, and attitudes and these differences predicate the notion that in order to be effective, community interventions need to take into consideration.
Culturally appropriate community interventions are defined, therefore, as meeting each of the following characteristics are the intervention is based on the cultural values of the group, and has the strategies that make up the intervention reflect the subjective culture of the group, and that the components that make up the strategies reflect the behavioral preferences and expectations of the group’s members.
The universal approach to multicultural counseling discusses definitions of culture and multicultural counseling and examines the cultural bias of western-style counseling and current trends in field of multicultural counseling and presents common themes within “minority” groups and presents examples of trans-cultural models for multicultural counseling training which makes recommendations for counselors and educators to incorporate concepts of cultural diversity into training programs.
The Chitling Test also formally, the Dove Counterbalance General Intelligence Test was designed by Adrian Dove, a Black sociologist. Aware of the dialect differences, he developed this exam as a half-serious attempt to show that American children are just not all speaking the same language. Those students who are not culturally deprived will score well. Some research on cross-cultural cognitive differences has argued that low scores by non-whites on intelligence tests reflect underlying inferior intelligence.
The low scores, they insist, cannot be accounted for wholly by cross-cultural differences. Most cross-cultural research must however, heed caution that one must avoid the pitfall of concluding that poor performance on instruments standardized for the majority culture implies lack of competence for members of minority subcultures. Upon consideration of the differences between cognitive capacity and cognitive performance indicates that performance levels under particular conditions are but fragments of indicators of capacity.
Test performance certainly reflects the interaction between capacity and the particular conditions of previous training and current test demands. It may then be concluded that the cognitive potential of members of one culture cannot be assessed accurately by the tests of another culture.