Cited by 203Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth disparities and outcomes

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Responses to the Everyday Discrimination Scale: A Differential Item Functioning Analysis

Open access
Lewis, T. T., Yang, F. M., Jacobs, E. A., Fitchett, G.·2012·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The authors examined the impact of race/ethnicity on responses to the Everyday Discrimination Scale, one of the most widely used discrimination scales in epidemiologic and public health research. Participants were 3,295 middle-aged US women (African-American, Caucasian, Chinese, Hispanic, and Japanese) from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) baseline examination (1996-1997). Multiple-indicator, multiple-cause models were used to examine differential item functioning (DIF) on the Everyday Discrimination Scale by race/ethnicity. After adjustment for age, education, and language of interview, meaningful DIF was observed for 3 (out of 10) items: "receiving poorer service in restaurants or stores," "being treated as if you are dishonest," and "being treated with less courtesy than other people" (all P's < 0.001). Consequently, the "profile" of everyday discrimination differed slightly for women of different racial/ethnic groups, with certain "public" experiences appearing to have more salience for African-American and Chinese women and "dishonesty" having more salience for racial/ethnic minority women overall. "Courtesy" appeared to have more salience for Hispanic women only in comparison with African-American women. Findings suggest that the Everyday Discrimination Scale could potentially be used across racial/ethnic groups as originally intended. However, researchers should use caution with items that demonstrated DIF.

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/kwr287

Cites

62 of 62 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: 4

  1. Williams DR, Yu Y, Jackson JS, et al. Racial differences in physical and mental health. J Health Psychol. 1997;2(3): 335-351.
  2. Osterlind SJ, Everson HT. Differential Item Functioning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2009.
  3. Burton E, Burton NW. The effect of item screening on test scores and test characteristics. In: Holland P, Wainer H, eds. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1993:321-336.
  4. Fifield A, O'Shaughnessy E. Shopping while black. Good Housekeeping. 2001;233(5):129-136.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, T. T., Yang, F. M., Jacobs, E. A., & Fitchett, G.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Lewis, T. T.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2012-02-03
Volume
175
Issue
5
Pages
391-401
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2100390472
Cited by
203
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
31.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (RR024139, AG012535, NR004061, AG012531)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Yale University
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Rush University
  • New England Research Institutes
  • National Institutes of Health (3u01ag012535-03s2)
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • University of California, Davis
  • School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • National Institute on Aging (U01-AG-012535, AG012531, U01AG012539, U01AG012505, AG 012535, AG012495, AG 012554, U01AG012553, NR004061, U01AG012495, AG 012505, AG 012546, AG012553, U01AG012554, U01AG012546, U01AG012531, AG012539)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (AG012535, AG012539, AG012554, AG012531, AG012546, HL092591, NR004061, K01HL092591, AG012495, AG012505, AG012553)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (AG012535, NR-004061, U01NR004061)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR024139, UL1RR024139)
  • Office of Research on Women's Health (AG012495, AG012539, AG012546, AG012554, AG012535, AG012531, NR004061, AG012553, AG012505)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
Everyday Discrimination Scale, differential item functioning, racial and ethnic differences, everyday discrimination, African American women, Hispanic women, Chinese women, Japanese women, middle-aged women, Study of Women's Health Across the Nation
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Prejudice, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Epidemiologic Research Design, Bias, Women's Health, Racial Groups

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