Cited by 196Psychometric Methodologies and TestingRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Race/ethnicity and measurement equivalence of the Everyday Discrimination Scale

Open access
Kim, Giyeon, Sellbom, Martin, Ford, Katy-Lauren·2014·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The present study examines the effect of race/ethnicity on measurement equivalence of the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS; Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997). Drawn from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES; Alegría, Jackson, Kessler, & Takeuchi, 2008), adults aged 18 and older from four racial/ethnic groups were selected for analyses: 884 non-Hispanic Whites, 4,950 Blacks, 2,733 Hispanics/Latinos, and 2,089 Asians. Multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. After adjusting for age and gender, the underlying construct of the EDS was invariant across four racial/ethnic groups, with Item 7 ("People act as if they're better than you are") associated with lower intercepts for the Hispanic/Latino and Asian groups relative to the non-Hispanic White and Black groups. In terms of latent factor differences, Blacks tended to score higher on the latent construct compared to other racial/ethnic groups, whereas Asians tended to score lower on the latent construct compared to Whites and Hispanics/Latinos. Findings suggest that although the EDS in general assesses the underlying construct of perceived discrimination equivalently across diverse racial/ethnic groups, caution is needed when Item 7 is used among Hispanics/Latinos or Asians. Implications are discussed in cultural and methodological contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0036431

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Byrne B 2011 Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus New York Routledge
  2. Kline RB 2011 Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 3 New York The Guilford Press
  3. Little TD 2013 Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling New York The Guilford Press
  4. Little TD Slegers DW Everitt B Howell D Rindskopf D 2 2005 Factor analysis: Multiple groups with means Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science 2 617 623 Chichester, UK Wiley
  5. Markides KS Liang J Jackson JS Binstock RH George LK 1990 Race, ethnicity, and aging: Conceptual and methodological issues Handbook of aging and the social sciences 3 112 129 San Diego, CA Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, G., Sellbom, M., & Ford, K.-L.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2014
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
892-900
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2080283008
Cited by
196
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
8.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K01AG045342)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH60220, U01-MH57716, U01-MH062209, and U01-MH62207)
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, measurement invariance, racial and ethnic differences, perceived discrimination, cross-cultural invariance, differential item functioning, Hispanic adults, Asian adults, Black people, non-Hispanic White adults, Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Asian, Black or African American, Ethnicity, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prejudice, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, White 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