Cited by 468Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchGender, Health, and Social InequalityFeminist Theory and Gender Studies

Construction and initial validation of the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black women.

Lewis, Jioni A., Neville, Helen A.·2015·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a measure of gendered racial microaggressions (i.e., subtle and everyday verbal, behavioral, and environmental expressions of oppression based on the intersection of one's race and gender) experienced by Black women by applying an intersectionality framework to Essed's (1991) theory of gendered racism and Sue, Capodilupo, et al.'s (2007) model of racial microaggressions. The Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS), was developed to assess both frequency and stress appraisal of microaggressions, in 2 separate studies. After the initial pool of GRMS items was developed, we received input from a community-based focus group of Black women and an expert panel. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis using a sample of 259 Black women resulted in a multidimensional scale with 4 factors as follows: (a) Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, (b) Silenced and Marginalized, (c) Strong Black Woman Stereotype, and (d) Angry Black Woman Stereotype. In Study 2, results of confirmatory factor analyses using an independent sample of 210 Black women suggested that the 4-factor model was a good fit of the data for both the frequency and stress appraisal scales. Supporting construct validity, the GRMS was positively related to the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (Nadal, 2011) and the Schedule of Sexist Events (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995). In addition, the GRMS was significantly related to psychological distress, such that greate…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/cou0000062

Cites

11 of 11 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, J. A., & Neville, H. A.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2015-04
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
289-302
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W2144178534
Cited by
468
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
71.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
Keywords
gendered racial microaggressions, Black women, intersectionality, scale development, gendered racism, stress appraisal, psychological distress, racial microaggressions, sexism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aggression, Black or African American, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Sexual Behavior, Stereotyping, Stress, Psychological, Focus Groups, Young Adult, Racism, Sexism

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