Most tools to assess & diagnose psychological disorders are developed in the West via testing on Western populations, and then used on non-Western populations. We assume these tools are reliable across different cultures, even though we know that they’re less reliable amongst (still Western-majority) minorities (e.g., American cancer patients). This study is the first to investigate whether Western-made psychological measures for mental health are reliable in non-Western cultures. As a case study, I use American tools that diagnose anxiety and depression, amongst participants in Bangladesh and America. Bangladesh has the highest prevalence of anxiety and depression in South Asia. However, Bangladeshis barely use mental health services, and many don’t know the term “depression,” or attribute mental illness to uncontrollable factors (e.g., God’s will). The current study uses two globally-popular tools measuring anxiety and depression, applying them to participants in Bangladesh and America. I analysed participant responses to (a) approximate prevalence of poor mental health, and (b) determine whether these measures are reliable in both countries. Results show significantly higher anxiety and depression in Bangladesh (compared to America). South-Asian-ethnic Bangladeshis had higher anxiety and depression than South-Asian-ethnic Americans did, so this health disparity is not based on race. Moreover, both mental health measures were reliable amongst Americans but not amongst Bangladeshis. To begin closing international mental health disparities and better serve minority populations, we need to ensure medical tools are appropriate for their culture. Psychological measures should be modified to better suit the populations on whom they are used.