Cited by 94Psychometric Methodologies and TestingRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchSocial and Intergroup Psychology

An Item Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory-Based Revision of the Everyday Discrimination Scale

Stucky, Brian D., Gottfredson, Nisha C., Panter, A. T., Daye, Charles E., Allen, Walter R., Wightman, Linda F.·2011·Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology

Abstract

The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS), a widely used measure of daily perceived discrimination, is purported to be unidimensional, to function well among African Americans, and to have adequate construct validity. Two separate studies and data sources were used to examine and cross-validate the psychometric properties of the EDS. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on a sample of African American law students (N = 589), providing strong evidence of local dependence, or nuisance multidimensionality within the EDS. In Study 2, a separate nationally representative community sample (N = 3,527) was used to model the identified local dependence in an item factor analysis (i.e., bifactor model). Next, item response theory (IRT) calibrations were conducted to obtain item parameters. A five-item, revised-EDS was then tested for gender differential item functioning (in an IRT framework). Based on these analyses, a summed score to IRT-scaled score translation table is provided for the revised-EDS. Our results indicate that the revised-EDS is unidimensional, with minimal differential item functioning, and retains predictive validity consistent with the original scale.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023356

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stucky, B. D., Gottfredson, N. C., Panter, A. T., Daye, C. E., Allen, W. R., & Wightman, L. F.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Venue
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology
Published
2011-04
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
175-185
ISSN
  • 1077-341X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0106
  • 1099-9809
OpenAlex
W2059343171
Cited by
94
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Law School Admission Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
Everyday Discrimination Scale, perceived discrimination, African Americans, local dependence, bifactor model, multidimensionality, differential item functioning, scale revision, psychometric properties, predictive validity, gender differences
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Black or African American, Discrimination, Psychological, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Black People, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review