The bi-factor CQ model reconciles the longstanding debate in the CQ literature over whether CQ is better conceptualized as a correlated four-factor model or a 2nd-order single-factor model. This chapter highlights key conceptual differences between these two CQ models and the recently introduced bi-factor model and compares them empirically. Results, based on 455 members working in multicultural teams, show that (a) the bi-factor CQ model fits the empirical data better than the four-factor and 2nd-order CQ models, (b) the holistic (i.e., general) CQ factor predicts observer-rated task performance, and (c) metacognitive and behavioral CQ predict task performance, over and above the holistic CQ factor. These findings strengthen the generalizability of prior meta-analytic findings supporting a bi-factor CQ model and provide a roadmap for researchers to apply the bi-factor CQ model in primary studies. We discuss the implications of these findings for theorizing about CQ and suggest directions for future research.
Other access options
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Log in with your Elgar Online account