Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Psychometric Methods to Evaluate a Racial/Ethnic Discrimination Scale
Open accessAbstract
Proponents of survey evaluation have long advocated the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, but this recommendation has rarely been practiced. The authors used both methods to evaluate the “Everyday Discrimination” scale (EDS), which measures frequency of various types of discrimination, in a multiethnic population. Cognitive testing included 30 participants of various race/ethnic backgrounds and identified items that were redundant, unclear, or inconsistent (e.g., cognitive challenges in quantifying acts of discrimination). Psychometric analysis included secondary data from two national studies, including 570 Asian Americans, 366 Latinos, and 2,884 African Americans, and identified redundant items as well as those exhibiting differential item functioning (DIF) by race/ethnicity. Overall, qualitative and quantitative techniques complemented one another, as cognitive interviewing findings provided context and explanation for quantitative results. Researchers should consider further how to integrate these methods into instrument pretesting as a way to minimize response bias for ethnic and racial respondents in population-based surveys.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 38 · Cited by 81
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Jabine TB Straf ML Tanur JM Tourangeau R 1984 Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines Washington, DC National Academy Press
- Miller K Mont D Maitland A Altman B Madans J (in press) Results of a cross-national structured cognitive interviewing protocol to test measures of disability Quality and Quantity
- Nunnally JC Bernstein IH 1994 Psychometric Theory 3 McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York
- Panter AT Daye CE Allen WR Wightman LF Deo M 2008 Everyday discrimination in a national sample of incoming law students Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1 2 67 79
- Williams DR Spencer MS Jackson JS Race, stress and physical health: The role of group identity 1999 Contrada RJ Ashmore RD Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues New York Oxford University Press 71 100
- Williams DR Yu Y Jackson JS Anderson NB 1997 Racial differences in physical and mental health: socio-economic status, stress and discrimination Journal of Health Psychology 2 3 335 351 22013026
- Authors
- Reeve, B. B., Willis, G., Shariff-Marco, S. N., Breen, N., Williams, D. R., Gee, G. C., Alegría, M., Takeuchi, D. T., Stapleton, M., & Levin, K. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, USA
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, Cambridge Health Alliance & Harvard Medical School, Somerville, MA, USA
- University of Washington (US)
- Westat (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Field Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-08-25
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 397-419
- ISSN
- 1064-8631 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-822X
- 1552-3969
- PMC
- PMC5993448
- OpenAlex
- W2135210203
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 12.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Field Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (Z99 MD999999)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- cognitive interviewing, Everyday Discrimination Scale, racial and ethnic discrimination, scale evaluation, differential item functioning, response bias, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, African Americans
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
