Anti-China Rhetoric: Instrument Scale

Abstract

The Anti-China Rhetoric Instrument (ACR Instrument), developed by Yin, Ji, and Blum (2023), is a specialized psychological scale designed to quantify the attitudes of Chinese international students toward pervasive anti-China rhetoric. The scale’s construction was rigorously guided by the principles of Item Response Theory (IRT)-based modeling.

The resulting 12-item questionnaire underwent comprehensive evaluation using a sample of Chinese undergraduate students in the United States, a demographic representing the largest subgroup of Chinese students studying abroad. The development study provided essential findings concerning the scale’s factor structure, internal reliability, and construct validity, establishing the ACR Instrument as a reliable measure for assessing the internalization of anti-China sentiment among this population.

Keywords

Anti-China Rhetoric, Chinese International Students, Attitudes, Diversity, Higher Education, Equity, Internationalization, Item Response Theory (IRT).

Authors

Yin, Peng; Ji, Feng; Blum, Alexander M.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Anti-China Rhetoric Instrument is to provide a standardized tool for research and practical applications aimed at fostering diversity and equity within the contexts of international student migration. This is particularly relevant for the ongoing internationalization efforts of U.S. higher education institutions.

By measuring the degree to which Chinese students approve of or internalize negative comparative rhetoric about China, the scale contributes critical data necessary for assessing campus climate, identifying areas of psychological vulnerability, and developing targeted support mechanisms for this significant international student population.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Attitudes toward Anti-China Rhetoric. This construct is defined by the degree of approval or agreement Chinese international students express regarding statements that exemplify the “us–them” paradigm characteristic of anti-China sentiment.

The instrument operationalizes this construct through 12 items, each framed as a comparison between the U.S. and China across various domains, such as academic freedom, scientific integrity, and economic development. Higher scores indicate greater approval of the rhetoric that positions U.S. systems and values as superior to those of China.

Validity

The validity of the ACR Instrument was established through rigorous psychometric analysis integrating both factor analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling.

Item Response Theory: The IRT analysis confirmed a well-functioning item response process. It was demonstrated that every one of the 12 items exhibited a continuous increase in the Mean θ (the latent trait score) across its four response levels. This finding supports the fundamental assumption that students responding at higher levels possess a greater amount of the measured trait, defined here as approving attitudes toward anti-China rhetoric.

Construct Validity: Construct validity was substantiated through the combined evidence derived from the factor analysis results, which confirmed a single factor structure, and the detailed item functioning results provided by the IRT framework.

Reliability

The instrument demonstrated strong internal consistency, confirming its reliability in consistently measuring the underlying construct.

Internal Consistency: Two separate indices confirmed the high reliability of the scale. The expected a posteriori/plausible values (EAP/PV reliability) was reported as .85, and the person separation index based on weighted likelihood estimates (WLE reliability) was reported as .84. These values indicate that the 12 items reliably cohere to measure the singular attitude construct.

Factor Analysis

Factorial techniques were employed to validate the dimensionality of the scale, confirming that the instrument measures a single underlying construct.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Initial exploratory analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed a dominant first factor, which accounted for 39.6% of the common variance. This outcome strongly suggested the unidimensional nature of the scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): A subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to formally validate this unidimensional structure. The CFA results showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit for the one-factor model, evidenced by the following key statistics: χ² = 113; df = 54; comparative fit index (CFI) = .98; normed fit index (NFI) = .96; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .98; and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .058.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Instrument Type: Rating Scale

Construct: Attitudes toward Anti-China Rhetoric

Format: Each item comprises a statement that exemplifies the us–them paradigm characteristic of anti-China rhetoric, accompanied by a brief narrative to aid student comprehension of the statement. Students’ responses to each item are categorized using a 4-point Likert scale with options: “disagree completely,” “disagree somewhat,” “agree somewhat,” and “agree completely.” These options correspond to four levels of approval of anti-China rhetoric established along the attitudinal continuum. In accordance with these four ordinal levels, students’ responses to the Likert scale are scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human (Male and Female)

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older)

Population Details: The respondents were Chinese undergraduate students located in the United States.

Test Methodology: The methodology encompassed Test Validity, Construct Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Principal Component Analysis, and Item Response Theory.

Keywords

Anti-China Rhetoric, Chinese International Students, Psychometric Scale Development, Likert scale, Educational Equity, IRT Modeling, Unidimensionality.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: 0000-0002-4977-6155 (Yin, Peng)

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Yin, Peng: University of California, Berkeley, School of Education, 2121 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California, United States, 94720-1670, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching

Commercial: No

Fee: No

Test Year: 2023

References

Yin, P., Ji, F., & Blum, A. M. (2025). Exploring Chinese international students’ attitudes toward anti-China rhetoric: Development and initial validation of an item response theory-based measure. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(3), 240–252. doi:10.1037/dhe0000513

Items of the Anti-China Rhetoric Instrument-Scale

Number of Items: This is a 12-item scale.

Test Items Available: Yes. Test items are available in the Supplemental Material, record 2024-09895-001.

Item 1 (Innovation)

The accompanying short narrative: China is still considered weak at innovation. This is largely due to the perception that China is merely a source of “junk” patents and “frivolous claims of ‘inventions’” with limited value. Despite this, China is actively working to advance its next generation of education. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students attend American colleges and universities, not only to acquire subject matter knowledge but also to foster a culture of innovation.

The one-sentence statement: In the U.S., Chinese immigration is considered to have a greater impact on culture.

Item 2 (Critical Thinking)

The accompanying short narrative: Education in China is largely based on rote memorization, with an emphasis on passive learning. In the U.S., education focuses on active learning, independent analysis, and critical thinking.

The one-sentence statement: Compared to the U.S. education system, the Chinese education system is fundamentally less capable of producing students with critical thinking.

Item 3 (The Quality of Higher Education)

The accompanying short narrative: It is unlikely that China will catch up with the U.S. in higher education. Over the next ten years, the U.S. will continue to be the gold standard for international higher education. This ability to produce cutting-edge research and technologies will continue to be the envy of the world.

The one-sentence statement: The overall quality of the Chinese education system at the higher education level can never reach the status enjoyed by its U.S. counterpart on the global stage.

Item 4 (Opportunities for Civil Engagement)

The accompanying short narrative: There is a significant lack of opportunities in China for individuals and collective actions to address issues of public concern. For example, unlike the #MeToo movement in the U.S., social movement activities aimed at combating sexual assault face significant obstacles in China because of the country’s political backwardness and systems of oppression existing at the institutional level.

The one-sentence statement: In comparison to the U.S., China lags substantially behind in terms of its commitment to advocating civic engagement.

Item 5 (Freedom of Expression)

The accompanying short narrative: In May 2017, a graduating senior from China gave a commencement speech at the University of Maryland. In her speech, the student praised America’s “fresh air of free speech” that allowed her to openly discuss racism, sexism, and politics in ways that she had never dreamed possible. Meanwhile, she also depicted the environment back in China as repressive and regimented, in which only authorities owned the narrative, and only authorities could define the truth.

The one-sentence statement: When it comes to addressing issues surrounding freedom of expression, the Chinese model of governance is incomparably inferior to its U.S. counterpart.

Item 6 (Global Information Flow Control)

The accompanying short narrative: For Chinese citizens with a global outlook, China’s so-called great firewall (the massive online censorship apparatus) is a frustrating experience. It serves as a painful reminder that the Chinese government distrusts anything it can’t control, especially the global flow of information, which is valued and well protected in the U.S. context.

The one-sentence statement: Contrasted with the U.S., China takes a much less acceptable approach to managing the global flow of information.

Item 7 (Academic Conduct)

The accompanying short narrative: In the Chinese education tradition, there is a longstanding tendency to prioritize getting good grades above all other considerations. Shaped by such tendency, what Americans perceive as academic dishonesty is oddly ignored in the Chinese education system.

The one-sentence statement: Considering how the code of academic conduct is upheld in the U.S. society, the Chinese society exhibits a much lower level of resistance against academic dishonesty.

Item 8 (Scientific Integrity)

The accompanying short narrative: While China is trying to turn itself into a country of high-tech industries, this transition process has been severely hindered due to a lack of regulatory infrastructure to guide the conduction of scientific research. China stands out from other technologically advanced countries, e.g., the U.S., due to its science culture as characterized by ji gōng jìn lì (“a motivation to seek quick successes and short-term gains”), which in turn raises serious scientific integrity issues.

The one-sentence statement: Compared to the U.S. scientific culture, the Chinese scientific culture is much less informed by the principles of scientific integrity (i.e., the professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research.

Item 9 (Unselfish Pursuits)

The accompanying short narrative: In Chinese society, self-realization has been increasingly associated with a tendency for maximizing individuals’ own benefits. Conversely, in the U.S. society, reaching one’s full potential has always been motivated more by the passion for making the world a better place, and less by self-interested considerations.

The one-sentence statement: As opposed to the U.S., China epitomized a self-centered society where much less emphasis is placed on promoting values of unselfishness.

Item 10 (Foreigner-friendly Society)

The accompanying short narrative: In comparison to China, America is clearly more foreigner-friendly. In the U.S., people treat a newcomer as a regular human being, which is not common at all in China because most Chinese have an “us” vs. “foreigners” mentality. This mentality is caused by a common lack of cultural confidence and a narrow-minded attitude typical of a society dominated by a single race.

The one-sentence statement: Compared to foreign nationals in the U.S., foreigners in China are way more likely to become the target of xenophobic sentiments.

Item 11 (Avenues of Social Mobility)

The accompanying short narrative: In China, opportunities for upward social mobility are highly restricted to people from privileged backgrounds. In the U.S., however, people from less privileged backgrounds are also granted considerable access to pursuing social and economic prosperity through hard work and determination.

The one-sentence statement: In terms of upward social mobility for ordinary people, China offers significantly fewer equal opportunities than the U.S.

Item 12 (Economy)

The accompanying short narrative: The U.S. economy remains much more sophisticated, innovative, and transparent than China’s economy. There is no doubt that the U.S. is going to stand unchallenged as the world’s economic leader.

The one-sentence statement: China’s economic development was equipped with far fewer desirable features than its U.S. counterpart.