Addi van Bergen

Cross-cultural validity of the Dutch version of the SEI-HS 103 5 was mentioned or appeared to play a role in the respondents answer, ‘1’ if culturally specific context was mentioned and ‘x’ if there was no conclusive evidence. Scores were calculated for each research group and each type of evidence. If 30% or more of the responses was problematic i.e. coded ‘1’, we categorised this as ‘yes, there may be a reason for concern’; if 10-30% was problematic, we categorised this as ‘perhaps, there is a reason for concern; and 0-10% was categorised as ‘no reason for concern’. Cases with inconclusive evidence were excluded from the calculation. Finally, all responses coded ‘yes, there may be a reason for concern’ were compared between the groups and analysed for their potential effect on the cross-cultural validity. Reporting in this manuscript follows the STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies [43]. RESULTS I Quantitative phase Descriptive statistics Background characteristics. Table 2 shows that the Dutch respondents of phase 1 are generally older than the three immigrant groups and live less often in neighbourhoods with a low socioeconomic status (SES). Table 2. General characteristics of respondents by migration background, Phase I and II (%) Women 19-39 years 40-64 years 65 years and older Low SES neighbourhood N PHASE I: Quantitative survey Surinamese 59.1 30.1 37.4 32.6 49.3 1,803 Moroccan 50.4 41.1 40.1 18.7 60.8 1,009 Turkish 52.0 46.1 36.9 17.0 66.3 1,164 Dutch 55.2 28.9 28.1 43.0 26.2 19,318 PHASE 2: Qualitative interview Surinamese 63.6 36.4 36.4 27.3 54.5 11 Moroccan 44.4 33.3 55.6 11.1 77.8 9 Turkish 50.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 70.0 10 Dutch 50.0 18.2 40.9 40.9 59.6 22