Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale.
Abstract
Universal-diverse orientation was defined as an attitude of awareness and acceptance of both the similarities and differences that exist among people. A 45-item scale developed to measure the construct was administered to 4 separate samples (ns = 93, 111, 153, and 135). Internal consistency and retest reliability for the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (M-GUDS) ranged from .89 to .95. The M-GUDS significantly correlated in theoretically predicted ways with measures of racial identity, empathy, healthy narcissism, feminism, androgyny, homophobia, and dogmatism (the last 2 correlations were negative). The M-GUDS displayed discriminant validity by failing to correlate with Scholastic Achievement Test Verbal scores, although mixed results were obtained with social desirability. In summary, the data suggest considerable reliability and initial construct validity for the M-GUDS.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The lack of relationship between the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale and SAT verbal scores provides evidence of discriminant construct validity.
“In addition, the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale, which measures awareness and potential acceptance of both similarities and differences in others, was not significantly related to the SAT ® verbal scores (Miville et al., 1999), providing evidence of discriminant construct validity.”
From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as Miville et al., 1999
The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale was not significantly related to SAT verbal scores.
“In addition, the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale, which measures awareness and potential acceptance of both similarities and differences in others, was not significantly related to the SAT ® verbal scores (Miville et al., 1999), providing evidence of discriminant construct validity.”
From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as Miville et al., 1999
M-GUDS is not correlated with SAT.
“not correlated with SAT (Miville et al., 1999).”
From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as Miville et al., 1999
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 19 · Cited by 334
- Authors
- Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuertes, J.
- Affiliations
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Counseling Psychology
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 291-307
- ISSN
- 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1978547126
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 17.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- scale development, construct validity, reliability statistics, racial identity, empathy, healthy narcissism, feminism, androgyny, homophobia, dogmatism, social desirability, verbal ability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
