Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II)

Abstract

The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II) is an extensively validated, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Israel Cuellar, Bill Arnold, and Roberto Maldonado in 1995. Designed to overcome the theoretical and conceptual limitations of its unilinear predecessor, the original ARSMA (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980), the ARSMA-II operationalizes acculturation as an orthogonal, multidimensional process in which affiliation with Mexican culture and assimilation into Anglo-American culture occur along distinct, quasi-independent developmental and behavioral axes. The primary instrument consists of two distinct sub-instruments: Scale 1 (30 items), which measures cultural orientation and yields the Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) (13 items) and the Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS) (17 items); and Scale 2 (18 items), an experimental instrument designed to quantify Marginality across three sociodemographic categories: Anglo Marginality (ANGMAR), Mexican Marginality (MEXMAR), and Mexican American Marginality (MAMARG). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 5 (“Extremely often or almost always”). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .83 for the AOS, .88 for the MOS, and .87 for the overarching Marginality Scale, accompanied by robust 1-week test-retest reliabilities of .94 and .96 for the AOS and MOS, respectively. The instrument generates both continuous composite acculturation scores and categorical classifications into five distinct acculturative typologies (ranging from Very Mexican Oriented to Very Assimilated Anglo Oriented), alongside classic orthogonal quadrants (Integration, Assimilation, Separation, Marginalization). The ARSMA-II remains a gold-standard assessment tool across cross-cultural clinical psychology, psychiatric epidemiology, neurocognitive profiling, behavioral medicine, and public health research with Hispanic and Latino populations.

Keywords

ARSMA-II, acculturation, Mexican Americans, Hispanic psychology, multidimensional assessment, Anglo Orientation Scale, Mexican Orientation Scale, marginality, biculturalism, psychometrics

Authors

The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II was conceptualized, developed, and empirically standardized by a distinguished research team in cross-cultural psychometrics and clinical psychology:

• Israel Cuellar, Ph.D.: Renowned clinical psychologist and leading authority in Hispanic mental health and transcultural neuropsychology. At the time of the scale’s creation and publication, Dr. Cuellar served as an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas-Pan American (later integrated into the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) and held a primary appointment as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University, where he directed the Julian Samora Research Institute. His seminal contributions laid the empirical foundation for objective cultural competence assessments in American psychodiagnostics.
• Bill Arnold, Ph.D.: Quantitative psychometrician and experimental psychologist affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas-Pan American (Edinburg, Texas). Dr. Arnold contributed advanced multivariate statistical methodologies, exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic designs, and reliability modeling.
• Roberto Maldonado, M.A. / Ph.D.: Clinical and cross-cultural researcher collaborating at the University of Texas-Pan American, whose empirical fieldwork focused on bilingual assessment protocols, community mental health disparities among Mexican origin populations, and marginalized youth acculturation trajectories.

Purpose

The primary clinical and research objective of the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II) is to provide a theoretically rigorous, psychometrically robust, and multidimensional measurement of the multidirectional acculturation process among individuals of Mexican descent residing in the United States. During the late 20th century, ethnic minority psychology transitioned away from traditional unilinear paradigms of cultural assimilation—which incorrectly postulated that the acquisition of dominant Anglo-American cultural norms inherently necessitated the proportional erosion and eventual extinction of an individual’s heritage cultural matrix (Berry, 1997; Rogler et al., 1991). The ARSMA-II was created to remediate these conceptual shortcomings by measuring orientation toward the host (Anglo) culture and retention of the native (Mexican) culture independently, while capturing the sociological phenomenon of marginality.

In clinical practice, the ARSMA-II addresses the profound risk of diagnostic misclassification, neuropsychological misinterpretation, and therapeutic misalignment stemming from unmeasured cultural variables. For clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists, and psychiatrists, cultural orientation directly impacts linguistic proficiency, nonverbal communication styles, health literacy, somatization patterns, idioms of distress, and family system dynamics (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). Acculturation levels have been consistently demonstrated to moderate performance on standardized cognitive and neurobehavioral batteries (such as Wechsler intelligence scales, semantic fluency tasks, and executive function matrices), where unfamiliarity with Anglo-dominant idioms or testing paradigms can produce spurious cognitive deficits.

In research contexts, the ARSMA-II provides an empirical framework to investigate the “immigrant paradox” or “Hispanic paradox”—the established epidemiological finding wherein less acculturated, first-generation Mexican immigrants frequently exhibit superior mental health, lower substance abuse rates, and more favorable obstetric outcomes compared to their more acculturated, second- and third-generation counterparts, despite experiencing heightened socio-economic adversity (Escarce et al., 2006). By capturing orientation along two orthogonal continua, the ARSMA-II allows epidemiological and behavioral researchers to differentiate between integrated (bicultural), assimilated, separated, and marginalized cohorts, evaluating how specific cultural configurations serve as buffers against psychological distress or vulnerabilities toward psychiatric morbidity.

Psychological Construct

The central construct measured by the ARSMA-II is acculturation, defined as the dynamic, multifaceted process of cultural, psychological, behavioral, and attitudinal transformation that ensues when individuals whose heritage culture is Mexican interact continuously with the dominant Anglo-American sociocultural environment. The ARSMA-II operationalizes this construct across multiple behavioral and affective domains spanning two foundational operational instruments: Scale 1 (Cultural Orientation) and Scale 2 (Marginality).

Scale 1: Cultural Orientation Dimensions

Scale 1 evaluates behavioral manifestations of acculturation across four primary manifest domains identified through structural analyses:

• Language Use and Preference: Evaluates communicative competency, communicative comfort, media consumption patterns, internal linguistic cognition (inner speech), and written communication in Spanish and English. Given that language proficiency and operational choice account for the vast majority of variance in behavioral acculturation, this domain includes indicators assessing interactive speech (e.g., Item 1: “I speak Spanish”; Item 2: “I speak English”), cognitive internal processes (e.g., Item 16: “My thinking is done in the English language”; Item 17: “My thinking is done in the Spanish language”), and multi-platform media enjoyment including music, television, cinema, and literature.
• Ethnic Identity and Cultural Self-Classification: Assesses affective self-identification and social categorization across divergent terminological frameworks. Rather than presuming monolithic identity categories, items gauge psychological identification with multiple labels: Mexican (Item 29), Mexican American (Item 28), Anglo American (Item 27), and American (Item 30). This domain captures subjective psychological belonging and group boundary delimitation.
• Cultural Heritage and Ethnic Behaviors: Captures adherence to familial traditions, intergenerational lineage patterns, gastronomic preferences, and cross-border contact. It measures family culinary practices (e.g., Item 24: “My family cooks Mexican foods”), parental identification patterns (Item 20: “My father identifies or identified himself as ‘Mexicano'”; Item 21: “My mother identifies or identified herself as ‘Mexicana'”), and geographic/experiential immersion (Item 18: “My contact with Mexico has been”; Item 19: “My contact with the USA has been”).
• Ethnic Interaction and Social Affiliation: Explores the ethno-cultural composition of the respondent’s primary interpersonal peer networks across the lifespan, differentiating developmental peer associations (Item 22: childhood Mexican friends; Item 23: childhood Anglo friends) from contemporaneous social networks (Item 25: adult Anglo friends; Item 26: adult Mexican friends) and general sociability (Item 4: association with Anglos; Item 5: association with Mexicans).

Scale 2: Marginality Dimensions

Scale 2 measures the sociopsychological construct of acculturative marginality, conceptualized as feelings of alienation, psychological distance, cognitive difficulty, or rejection regarding the customs, values, behavioral practices, and interpersonal acceptance of specific cultural groups. It yields three distinct subscales:

• Anglo Marginality (ANGMAR): Comprising items 1 through 6, this subscale quantifies the degree of subjective resistance, cognitive dissonance, or difficulty an individual experiences in accepting Anglo-American ideas, attitudes, behaviors, values, customs, and forming close personal friendships with Anglos.
• Mexican Marginality (MEXMAR): Comprising items 7 through 12, this subscale measures distress, critical detachment, or psychological difficulty regarding the ideas, attitudes, social behaviors, values, traditions, and interpersonal integration with individuals from Mexico.
• Mexican American Marginality (MAMARG): Comprising items 13 through 18, this subscale captures ambivalence, cognitive friction, or estrangement directed toward Mexican Americans, addressing intra-group tensions often experienced by individuals who feel disconnected from both their ancestral culture and their immediate diaspora peer community.

Theoretical Framework

The ARSMA-II is anchored in the transition from unilinear models of cultural change to bidimensional, orthogonal acculturation theory. Historically, early anthropological and psychological formulations (e.g., Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936; Milton Gordon, 1964) conceptualized acculturation as a zero-sum, bipolar continuum. In this framework, heritage culture retention and host culture acquisition were mutually exclusive endpoints; advancement along the path of Americanization inevitably required the systematic shedding of ancestral language, values, and traditions.

The original ARSMA (Cuellar et al., 1980) operated predominantly within this bipolar assumption, yielding a single score ranging from “Very Mexican” to “Very Anglo.” However, subsequent research in cross-cultural psychology demonstrated that individuals can maintain deep allegiance to their heritage culture while concurrently mastering the competencies necessary to thrive in Anglo-American society—a state operationalized as bicultural competence or integration (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Oetting & Beauvais, 1991).

Cuellar and colleagues (1995) designed the ARSMA-II to embody the orthogonal conceptualization articulated by John Berry (1980, 1997). In Berry’s model, two fundamental and independent questions guide the acculturating individual: (1) Is it considered valuable to maintain one’s cultural identity and characteristics? (2) Is it considered valuable to maintain relationships with other groups? Cross-classifying these two independent dimensions generates four distinct acculturative typologies:

• Integration (Biculturalism): High retention of heritage culture (elevated Mexican Orientation) coupled with high adoption of the receiving society’s cultural framework (elevated Anglo Orientation).
• Assimilation: Low retention of heritage culture paired with high adoption of receiving societal norms.
• Separation (Cultural Resistance): High maintenance of heritage culture combined with low interaction with or adoption of receiving societal culture.
• Marginalization: Low engagement with both the heritage culture and the dominant receiving culture, often accompanied by systemic alienation, acculturative stress, and anomie.

The ARSMA-II incorporates this orthogonal framework by calculating independent scores for the Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) and the Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS). This design enables researchers to treat acculturation as a continuous two-dimensional plane while also retaining mathematical compatibility with linear classifications through a composite difference score ($AOS – MOS$). Furthermore, the inclusion of Scale 2 (Marginality) allows for empirical examination of the marginalization quadrant, bridging behavioral acculturation with sociological models of intergroup alienation (Park, 1928; Stonequist, 1935).

Validity

The ARSMA-II has undergone rigorous psychometric validation, establishing strong construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity across diverse Hispanic cohorts.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

Construct validity was demonstrated by Cuellar et al. (1995) through a known-groups design across five distinct generational cohorts among Mexican Americans: first generation (Mexican-born immigrants), second generation (U.S.-born with at least one foreign-born parent), third generation (U.S.-born with U.S.-born parents and Mexican-born grandparents), fourth generation (U.S.-born, parents U.S.-born, all grandparents U.S.-born), and fifth generation. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated significant main effects for generation across both orientation scales:

• Mean Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS) scores exhibited a monotonic decline across successive generations: Generation 1 ($M = 4.29, SD = 0.51$), Generation 2 ($M = 3.65, SD = 0.63$), Generation 3 ($M = 3.19, SD = 0.66$), Generation 4 ($M = 2.82, SD = 0.68$), and Generation 5 ($M = 2.89, SD = 0.72$).
• Conversely, Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) scores demonstrated a significant positive trajectory across generational strata: Generation 1 ($M = 2.87, SD = 0.74$), Generation 2 ($M = 3.75, SD = 0.58$), Generation 3 ($M = 4.07, SD = 0.50$), Generation 4 ($M = 4.23, SD = 0.44$), and Generation 5 ($M = 4.21, SD = 0.46$).

Linear trend analyses confirmed that generational status explained substantial variance in both the AOS ($F[4, 374] = 92.4, p < .001$) and the MOS ($F[4, 374] = 81.3, p < .001$), supporting the instrument’s sensitivity to intergenerational cultural transition.

Concurrent and Criterion-Related Validity

Concurrent validity was verified by correlating the ARSMA-II linear composite score ($AOS – MOS$) with the original ARSMA (Cuellar et al., 1980). The correlation between the original instrument and the ARSMA-II composite linear acculturation index was exceptionally high ($r = .89, p < .001$). Furthermore, the AOS correlated strongly with self-rated English fluency ($r = .81$) and years of formal education completed in the United States ($r = .67$). The MOS demonstrated high criterion correlations with self-rated Spanish language proficiency ($r = .85$) and percentage of lifespan spent residing in Mexico ($r = .74$).

Convergent and Cross-Cultural Generalizability

Subsequent psychometric investigations have affirmed the convergent validity of the ARSMA-II across divergent clinical and educational settings. Lee, Yoon, and Liu-Tom (2006) evaluated the structural generalizability and measurement properties of the ARSMA-II framework adapted for Asian American populations, establishing that the underlying orthogonal factor structure holds across distinct immigrant demographics. Furthermore, structural equation models measuring acculturative stress, depressive symptomatology, and family conflict have routinely validated the ARSMA-II’s predictive utility regarding psychosocial functioning in Latino youth and adults (Castillo et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2012).

Reliability

The ARSMA-II demonstrates robust reliability across multiple evaluative parameters, including internal consistency reliability, test-retest temporal stability, and standard error of measurement across all major subscales.

Internal Consistency

In the original standardization sample of 379 university students and community participants (Cuellar et al., 1995), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicated high internal consistency:

• Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS): $\alpha = .83$ (13 items)
• Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS): $\alpha = .88$ (17 items)
• Overall Marginality Scale: $\alpha = .87$ (18 items)
• Anglo Marginality Subscale (ANGMAR): $\alpha = .90$ (6 items)
• Mexican Marginality Subscale (MEXMAR): $\alpha = .68$ (6 items)
• Mexican American Marginality Subscale (MAMARG): $\alpha = .91$ (6 items)

The moderate alpha value for MEXMAR ($lpha = .68$) reflects the elevated variance in how diverse immigrant and non-immigrant cohorts perceive distinct customs across individual Mexican states, whereas the MAMARG and ANGMAR subscales demonstrated very high internal coherence.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was evaluated by readministering the ARSMA-II over a 1-week test-retest interval to a subsample of respondents ($N = 83$). The Pearson correlation coefficients confirmed high stability:

• Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS): $r_{tt} = .94, p < .0001$
• Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS): $r_{tt} = .96, p < .0001$
• Overall Marginality Scale: $r_{tt} = .78, p < .001$
• Anglo Marginality Subscale (ANGMAR): $r_{tt} = .72, p < .001$
• Mexican Marginality Subscale (MEXMAR): $r_{tt} = .80, p < .001$
• Mexican American Marginality Subscale (MAMARG): $r_{tt} = .81, p < .001$

These findings indicate that individual response patterns remain stable over short intervals, providing reliable measurement for experimental, epidemiological, and clinical baseline assessments.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the ARSMA-II was initially explored through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing principal axis factoring followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to evaluate whether the underlying latent structure corresponded to the theoretical multidimensional framework.

Scale 1: Factor Solutions

Factor analysis of Scale 1 items produced a clear two-factor orthogonal solution that accounted for the majority of the total variance, corroborating the independence of the two cultural orientation continua:

• Factor 1 (Mexican Orientation): Consists of 17 items that load predominantly on Spanish language usage (e.g., speaking, reading, writing, internal thought), affiliation with Mexicans, cultural culinary habits, and parental Mexican self-identification. Factor loadings for these items ranged from .48 to .84, with negligible cross-loadings onto the Anglo factor (generally $< .20$).
• Factor 2 (Anglo Orientation): Consists of 13 items characterized by high loadings on English language proficiencies, consumption of English media (cinema, literature, television, music), peer affiliations with Anglos, and self-identification as Anglo American or American. Factor loadings on this axis ranged from .45 to .81.

Importantly, the correlation between the latent Factor 1 (MOS) and Factor 2 (AOS) was close to zero ($r = -.07, p = .18$), confirming empirical support for the bidimensional, orthogonal hypothesis: behavioral and linguistic engagement in Anglo culture does not systematically necessitate a corresponding withdrawal from Mexican cultural practices.

Scale 2: Marginality Factor Solutions

Factor analysis of the 18-item Scale 2 yielded a three-factor solution confirming the tri-ethnic structure of marginality:

• Factor 1: Mexican American Marginality (MAMARG), with items 13–18 loading between .65 and .88.
• Factor 2: Anglo Marginality (ANGMAR), with items 1–6 loading between .68 and .85.
• Factor 3: Mexican Marginality (MEXMAR), with items 7–12 loading between .52 and .79.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory structural modeling across broader samples (Lee et al., 2006; Flores et al., 2004) evaluated the fit of this two-factor orthogonal structure against rival unilinear models. The two-factor orthogonal model yielded satisfactory fit indices: $\chi^2 / df < 2.5$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}) = .054$ (90% CI [.048, .061]), Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}) = .93$, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}) = .051$. In contrast, a unidimensional one-factor model exhibited poor fit ($ ext{RMSEA} = .128, text{CFI} = .68$), demonstrating that acculturation cannot be accurately captured by a single continuous linear spectrum.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ARSMA-II is a multidimensional, paper-and-pencil or computer-administered psychometric self-report instrument comprising two distinct scales totaling 48 items.

Structural Characteristics

• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric rating scale; also amenable to structured clinical interview format.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 12 and older) of Mexican origin or heritage residing within the United States. A Brief version (indicated by items marked with “B”) can be extracted for children and youth.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for Scale 1 (30 items); an additional 10 minutes if Scale 2 (18 items) is administered.
• Item Count:
  • Scale 1 (Acculturation): 30 items.
    • Anglo Orientation Subscale (AOS): 13 items (Items 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30).
    • Mexican Orientation Subscale (MOS): 17 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29).
  • Scale 2 (Marginality): 18 items.
    • Anglo Marginality Subscale (ANGMAR): 6 items (Items 1–6).
    • Mexican Marginality Subscale (MEXMAR): 6 items (Items 7–12).
    • Mexican American Marginality Subscale (MAMARG): 6 items (Items 13–18).
• Response Scale (Scale 1): 5-point Likert rating:
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 2 = Very little or not very often
  • 3 = Moderately
  • 4 = Much or very often
  • 5 = Extremely often or almost always

Scoring Algorithms and Typology Derivations

The ARSMA-II permits two computational methodologies: a continuous Linear Acculturation Score and an Orthogonal Typology Classification.

1. Linear Acculturation Scoring

1. Calculate the Anglo Orientation Score (AOS) by summing the raw responses to the 13 AOS items and dividing by 13:
   $$\text{Mean AOS} = \frac{\sum \text{AOS Items}}{13}$$
2. Calculate the Mexican Orientation Score (MOS) by summing the raw responses to the 17 MOS items and dividing by 17:
   $$\text{Mean MOS} = \frac{\sum \text{MOS Items}}{17}$$
3. Calculate the linear Acculturation Score by subtracting the mean MOS from the mean AOS:
   $$\text{Acculturation Score} = \text{Mean AOS} – \text{Mean MOS}$$

The resulting continuous score ranges from $-4.0$ to $+4.0$. Based on normative standardization distributions (Mean = $-0.35, SD = 1.0$), scores are categorized into five distinct levels of acculturation:

• Level I: Very Mexican Oriented (Acculturation Score < -1.33 [more than 1 SD below sample mean])
• Level II: Mexican Oriented to approximately balanced bicultural (Acculturation Score between -1.33 and -0.07)
• Level III: Slightly Anglo Oriented bicultural (Acculturation Score between -0.07 and +1.19)
• Level IV: Strongly Anglo Oriented (Acculturation Score between +1.20 and +2.45)
• Level V: Very Assimilated Anglo Oriented (Acculturation Score > +2.45 [more than 2 SDs above sample mean])

2. Orthogonal Typology (Berry’s Quadrants)

By evaluating the Mean AOS and Mean MOS independently using sample mean cutoffs ($AOS_{mean} = 3.65$; $MOS_{mean} = 3.70$), subjects are classified into four cultural orientations:

• Bicultural / Integrated: High AOS ($ge 3.65$) and High MOS ($ge 3.70$).
• Assimilated: High AOS ($ge 3.65$) and Low MOS ($< 3.70$).
• Separated / Enculturated: Low AOS ($< 3.65$) and High MOS ($ge 3.70$).
• Marginalized: Low AOS ($< 3.65$) and Low MOS ($< 3.70$).

3. Marginality Scoring (Scale 2)

Scale 2 subscales are scored by calculating the respective mean values for each group of items:

• Anglo Marginality (ANGMAR): Sum of items 1–6 divided by 6.
• Mexican Marginality (MEXMAR): Sum of items 7–12 divided by 6.
• Mexican American Marginality (MAMARG): Sum of items 13–18 divided by 6.
• Global Marginality Score: Sum of all 18 items divided by 18. Elevated scores ($> 2.5$) suggest significant cultural alienation or identity strain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II was originally developed and published in 1995 by Israel Cuellar, Bill Arnold, and Roberto Maldonado through the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences (Volume 17, Issue 3, pp. 275–304), published by SAGE Publications. Portions of the psychometric standardization and measurement procedures are documented in academic compendiums, including Measuring Race and Ethnicity (Davis & Engel, 2011, Springer).

Licensing and Academic Use: The scale items and scoring algorithms were placed in the public domain for academic, non-commercial scientific research, clinical diagnostic assessment, and educational training by the primary authors. Researchers and clinical professionals are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale provided that full bibliographic attribution is maintained. Commercial syndication, incorporation into proprietary digital testing batteries, or fee-based clinical platforms require formal copyright clearance through SAGE Publications or the Julian Samora Research Institute at Michigan State University.

References

• Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Westview Press.
• Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
• Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., & Brossart, D. F. (2004). Acculturation, white marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceived distress in Mexican American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.151
• Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001
• Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/073998638000200301
• Davis, L. E., & Engel, R. J. (2011). Measuring Race and Ethnicity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6697-1
• Escarce, J. J., Morales, L. S., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). The health status and health behaviors of Hispanics. In M. Tienda & F. Mitchell (Eds.), Hispanics and the Future of America (pp. 362–422). National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19899/
• Flores, L. Y., Eyre, S. L., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). Acculturation, psychological distress, and family conflict among Mexican American adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(4), 452–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986304267211
• LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395
• Lee, R. M., Yoon, E., & Liu-Tom, H.-T. T. (2006). Structure and measurement of acculturation/enculturation for Asian Americans using the ARSMA-II. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2006.11909789
• Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural identification of minority adolescents. The International Journal of the Addictions, 25(5A-6A), 655–685. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089109077265
• Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 881–893. https://doi.org/10.1086/214592
• Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330
• Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. American Psychologist, 46(6), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.585
• Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330
• Stonequist, E. V. (1935). The problem of the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084646

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)