Cross-cultural research in the social sciences is expanding rapidly, helping us understand how different cultures shape human behaviour. But here’s the big question: Are the tools we use actually measuring what we think they are in diverse populations? This issue of construct validity—ensuring research instruments truly capture what they are meant to—becomes even more complicated when studying children in diverse cultural settings. Our recent paper, Construct Validity in Cross-Cultural, Developmental Research: Challenges and Strategies for Improvement, reveals why this matters and how researchers can (try to, at least!) get it right.

What’s the Problem? The Challenge of Construct Validity

In cross-cultural experimental research the goal is often to make direct comparisons across different populations, typically by using the same measures. This approach allows researchers to match the conditions exactly, theoretically isolating cultural differences in performance while controlling for other variables. However, just because a test is applied the same way in different cultures, doesn’t mean that it measures the same thing. Children from one culture might approach a task differently than those from another, not because of cognitive ability but because of differing social norms, expectations, or experiences. Without careful consideration, we can generate misleading conclusions about development and cognition across cultures.

If research tools don’t translate well across cultures, the results can be inaccurate. In one study, researchers tested rural Zambian children’s ability to recognize patterns—a skill that involves identifying repeated sequences or patterns—using flat, two-dimensional puzzles designed for western children. Zambian children performed at lower rates than western norms, but when researchers redesigned it using familiar three-dimensional objects like beans and stones, their performance improved significantly (Zuilkowski et al., 2016). The issue wasn’t ability—it was that Zambian children had less exposure to 2D images like those in books or screens. This underscores a key issue: a test that seems to work in one culture might not accurately measure the same skill in another. We identify five key challenges that make this issue particularly tricky.

1. Do we really understand cultural contexts? Many psychological tools are designed in western settings, but assumed to apply everywhere. Yet concepts like creativity, morality, and social skills vary across cultures. For instance, some western cultures, like Germany, emphasise independence in child-rearing, encouraging kids to be autonomous and express opinions. Conversely, rural communities in Cameroon prioritize social harmony and interdependence (Keller et al., 2006). If researchers equate independence with development, they might mistakenly view children in interdependent cultures as delayed, rather than simply reflecting different cultural values. Rushing experimental work without deeply understanding cultural context can result in poorly designed measures and conclusions.
2. Is it culture or development? How do we know if a behaviour is due to a developmental or cultural influence? For instance, children in some cultures learn to use tools like knives at a young age, while in others, this skill develops much later due to safety concerns. What’s seen as a milestone in one society might emerge at a completely different time in another. Many cross-cultural studies attempt to isolate cognitive abilities without considering cultural influences.
3. Are we asking the right questions? Without a formal causal framework–a clear plan for figuring out the cause-and-effect relationships–cross-cultural studies may fail to define their assumptions clearly. This weakens confidence in their conclusions, which is especially important in cross-cultural research. A causal framework helps researchers understand how one factor might lead to another, which is important for making reliable conclusions.
4. Are we listening to local voices? Many studies rely on short-term partnerships, led by PIs at western institutions, rather than long-term collaborations. Limiting local expertise can lead to misunderstandings and the use of tools that don’t truly reflect the local context.
5. Are our tests culturally fair? Tests that are designed to be used in the same way for all individuals, assume a universal understanding of concepts, overlooking differences in communication styles, education, and social norms. Take the famous marshmallow tests on delayed gratification: Japanese children waited longer than American children when the reward was a marshmallow. But when the reward changed to a wrapped gift, American children waited longer (Yanaoka et al., 2022). This difference wasn’t self-control–it was cultural norms. In Japan, waiting to eat is emphasized, while in the US, waiting to open gifts is more common. Research must account for cultural expectations to ensure fair comparisons. Many studies transplant western-designed tools without properly validating them in other cultures.

How Can We Fix It? Smarter Research Strategies

So, how can we make cross-cultural developmental research more accurate We suggest several strategies:

1. Observe first, test later– Rather than jumping straight to tests, researchers should first observe and understand study cultures. Ethnographic approaches–immersing in a community, talking to people, and observing daily life–help researchers see behaviours in their natural setting. For instance, to study cooperation in children, researchers might watch how kids naturally collaborate during play instead of relying on structured tests that may not reflect real-world interactions. This ensures research tools and interpretations align with cultural realities rather than outside assumptions.
2. Build better frameworks– Research should be guided by theories that explicitly consider cultural differences, helping distinguish universal developmental patterns–the typical stages through which children develop from ones that are unique to a particular culture. Using structured, evidence-based frameworks helps researchers identify the right study populations, focus on the most important factors, and draw clearer conclusions.
3. Work WITH communities, not ON them– Long-term partnerships with local researchers and communities lead to more accurate, culturally respectful research. Ideally, community members contribute at every stage–study design, research questions, data interpretation, and sharing results.
4. Adapt, don’t just adopt– Research tools should be adapted to the cultural setting, and test administrators should be trained in cultural sensitivity. Simply translating a questionnaire isn’t enough–questions must make sense in the target language and cultural context, as some concepts don’t translate directly.

The Balancing Act: Consistency vs. Cultural Sensitivity

The big takeaway? While scientific consistency is important, it shouldn’t come at the cost of cultural relevance. By integrating local insights, collaborating meaningfully, and refining research tools to fit diverse contexts, we can make sure our findings truly reflect human development—no matter where in the world we’re studying.

Read the full article, Construct Validity in Cross-Cultural, Developmental Research: Challenges and Strategies for Improvement, in Evolutionary Human Sciences.

References

Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Jensen, H., Papaligoura, Z., Holub, C., Tomiyama, A., Su, Y., Wang, Y., & Chaudhary, N. (2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories: A multicultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105284494

Yanaoka, K., Michaelson, L. E., Guild, R. M., Dostart, G., Yonehiro, J., Saito, S., & Munakata, Y. (2022). Cultures crossing: The power of habit in delaying gratification. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1172–1181. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221074650

Zuilkowski, S. S., McCoy, D. C., Serpell, R., Matafwali, B., & Fink, G. (2016). Dimensionality and the development of cognitive assessments for children in sub-saharan Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(3), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115624155

Dr Nicole Wen is a Lecturer in Psychology in the Centre for Culture and Evolution at Brunel University of London, UK and Director of the Culture and Minds Lab. Dr Wen is a psychologist studying how culture influences children’s learning, cooperation, and social connections.

Dr Bruce Rawlings is a developmental, cross-cultural and comparative psychologist, based at Durham University, UK. His work examines cognitive and cultural influences on innovation, creativity, and tool use in children and great apes.