Cross-cultural validity: ethnocentrism in health studies with special reference to the Vietnamese.

The paper presents a methodological analysis of some recent studies concerned with health and socio-cultural adaptational problems of Vietnamese refugees. Using certain methodological rules, developed by social scientists for comparative research, such as conceptual equivalence or equivalence of measures, the claim of the studies to have employed cross-culturally valid instruments is examined. Since none of the studies have sought to achieve conceptual equivalence of their comparative concepts it is shown that several salient cultural differences in beliefs regarding the conception and treatment of illness among Vietnamese are over-looked. The studies only use indicators derived from, and based on, American samples and do not take into account culturally conditioned responses. Thus it is shown in some detail that the claim of cross-cultural validity should be seriously questioned as far as the Social Readjustment Rating Questionnaire and the Cornell Medical Index are concerned. The social class differences between 1975 and 1979 Vietnamese refugees are discussed in order to caution the reader that findings based on 1975 refugees will not apply to 1979 refugees. The paper concludes with the suggestion that different research strategies are required namely that open-ended interviews be used in societies of which our knowledge concerning salient cultural differences is fragmentary.