Cited by 18Psychometric Methodologies and TestingRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchHealth disparities and outcomes

Assessment of differential item functioning in the experiences of discrimination index: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study

Open access
Cunningham, T. J., Berkman, L. F., Gortmaker, S. L., Kiefe, C. I., Jacobs, D. R., Seeman, T. E., Kawachi, I.·2011·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The psychometric properties of instruments used to measure self-reported experiences of discrimination in epidemiologic studies are rarely assessed, especially regarding construct validity. The authors used 2000-2001 data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in 2 versions of the Experiences of Discrimination (EOD) Index, an index measuring self-reported experiences of racial/ethnic and gender discrimination. DIF may confound interpretation of subgroup differences. Large DIF was observed for 2 of 7 racial/ethnic discrimination items: White participants reported more racial/ethnic discrimination for the "at school" item, and black participants reported more racial/ethnic discrimination for the "getting housing" item. The large DIF by race/ethnicity in the index for racial/ethnic discrimination probably reflects item impact and is the result of valid group differences between blacks and whites regarding their respective experiences of discrimination. The authors also observed large DIF by race/ethnicity for 3 of 7 gender discrimination items. This is more likely to have been due to item bias. Users of the EOD Index must consider the advantages and disadvantages of DIF adjustment (omitting items, constructing separate measures, and retaining items). The EOD Index has substantial usefulness as an instrument that can assess self-reported experiences of discrimination.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwr253

Cites

33 of 33 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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
  2. Osterlind SJ, Everson HT. Differential Item Functioning. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunningham, T. J., Berkman, L. F., Gortmaker, S. L., Kiefe, C. I., Jacobs, D. R., Seeman, T. E., & Kawachi, I.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Cunningham, T. J.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2011-10-29
Volume
174
Issue
11
Pages
1266-1274
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2156243889
Cited by
18
References
34
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc95095-66-0-1, n01hc48050-59-0-1, n01hc48048-58-0-1, n01hc045134-008, n01hc48047-55-0-1, n01hc45205-9-0-0, n01hc005187-000, n01hc48049-61-0-1, n01hc45204-11-0-1)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01HC48050, N01-HC045134, N01 HC 95095, N01 HC045205, N01 HC048048, N01-HC05187, N01-HC-048049, N01 HC045204, N01-HC- 45204, N01 HC095095, N01 HC048050, N01-HC48048, N01-HC-45205, N01 HC005187, N01-HC-48-049, N01 HC048047, N01-HC-480-47)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR031982)
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 › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
differential item functioning, racial and ethnic discrimination, gender discrimination, self-reported discrimination, construct validity, CARDIA study, young adults
MeSH terms
Black or African American, Female, Humans, Male, Prejudice, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Sex Factors, White People

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