Cultural Index
Generalities
The CI was created in the early 1990s by Gary Walstrom and Cecilia Bruening-Walstrom in 2004, in partnership with Louis Janda, a professor of psychology at Old Dominion University.
The company is based in Leawood, Kansas. CI is most often found on the East Coast and Southern states of the USA.
Assessment
The CI questionnaire has two questions on two pages, each with 174 adjectives. The first question asks the respondents to describe themselves, and the second asks them to describe how they must behave to be successful in their current position. It takes up to 20 minutes to answer.
Four primary dimensions are measured, shown with dots in the CI graphs, and designated with the letters A, B, C, and D. Three additional dimensions are measured; one, Logic, seems to be calculated on top of the four primary dimensions. INgiuity is self-appraised rather
| Dimension | GRI a priori |
|---|---|
| Autonomy (A) | Low 1, low 2, high 4 versus high 1, high 2, low 4 |
| Social Ability (B) | Low 1, Low 2 versus high 1, High 2 |
| Pace (C) | Low 3, low 4 versus high 3, high 4 |
| Conformity (D) | Low 4, high 2 vs High 4, low 2 |
| Logic (L) | N/A (composite factor) |
| Ingenuity (I) | High 1 |
| Energy Units (EU) | Response Level |
Usage
A job evaluation form called the C-Job Position Analysis Questionnaire allows users to evaluate the behaviors expected in a job and make comparisons with the person's profile. The publisher proposes the assessment as a management tool for all kinds of applications, including recruitment. The CI deploys through training and services.
The publisher makes use of the profiles for their learning and use for management applications.
Comments
The CI primary dimensions are close to those of the AVA, DISC, Drake P3, PI systems, and others, which are based on four factors.
The different content in the adjective list of the two pages prevents comparing the results from the two questions and analyzing a person's adaptation. The second question of the survey targets the perception of the job, rather than the perceived demand of the environment and people at large. This may further distort the potential analysis of adaptation, especially when the influence to adapt comes from past experiences and people outside the workplace.
By design, CI doesn't measure a person's engagement, which may result from a lack of stimuli in the environment. This also means that CI doesn't assess a system's ability to gauge the energy someone invests in their job, which can be influenced by organizational and management efforts—or the lack thereof—and not solely by the individual.
The measurement of ingenuity is self-appraised and highly correlated with CI's A factor. As for other cognitive capabilities such as intelligence, agility, or shrewdness, self-appraisal may better be assessed by other types of assessments like those found for intelligence. Additionally, ingenuity can be expressed in different ways. The four primary factors could potentially tell. The ingenuity measure will consequently lack precision and nuances, which will impair its use.
The assessment of ingenuity is self-rated and closely linked to CI's A factor. For other cognitive skills, such as intelligence, agility, or shrewdness, self-assessment might be better evaluated through different types of tests, like those used for intelligence. Additionally, ingenuity can be expressed in various ways. The four primary factors could potentially reveal this. The ingenuity measure will likely lack precision and nuances that will impair its utility.
The four primary dimensions being measured are work-related, meet considerations of parsimony and coverage, but as suggested by the above comparison with GRI’s four factors, may lack orthogonality.