Social Maltreatment and Symptomatology: Validating the Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale-Short Form in a Diverse Online Sample.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1177/08862605241301791
John Briere, Marsha Runtz, Elise Villenueve, Natacha Godbout
{"title":"Social Maltreatment and Symptomatology: Validating the Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale-Short Form in a Diverse Online Sample.","authors":"John Briere, Marsha Runtz, Elise Villenueve, Natacha Godbout","doi":"10.1177/08862605241301791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are few psychometrically valid measures of exposure to social maltreatment that simultaneously assess sexism, racism, and anti-LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other nonheteronormative) behavior, despite the commonness of these phenomena. The <i>Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale</i> (SDMS) meets this requirement but is, as a result, somewhat lengthy (36 items). This article introduces a short form of the SDMS containing only half the number of items but generally retaining the psychometric qualities of the original measure. The 18-item <i>Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale-Short Form</i> (SDMS-SF) consists of six SDMS stem items (e.g., <i>I have been disrespected, People made cruel or demeaning jokes about me</i>) each of which is rated according to how often it had happened <i>\"because of my sex,\" \"because of my race,\"</i> and <i>\"because of my sexual orientation or gender identity.\"</i> In the SDMS online sample (<i>N</i> = 528), SDMS-SF <i>Sexism, Racism</i>, and <i>Cisheterosexism</i> subscales were validated by confirmatory factor analysis and were internally consistent (α = .91-.95) and highly correlated with the original SDMS subscales (<i>r</i> = .94 in all cases). All SDMS-SF subscales correlated with self-reported anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress (mean <i>r</i> = .29), corresponding to a medium effect size. In all but one instance, related SDMS and SDMS-SF subscales did not differ significantly in the strength of their association with symptomatology. Together, these results suggest that the SDMS-SF is a reliable and valid measure of social discrimination, generally equivalent to the SDMS despite containing only half as many items.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":" ","pages":"8862605241301791"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241301791","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are few psychometrically valid measures of exposure to social maltreatment that simultaneously assess sexism, racism, and anti-LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other nonheteronormative) behavior, despite the commonness of these phenomena. The Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale (SDMS) meets this requirement but is, as a result, somewhat lengthy (36 items). This article introduces a short form of the SDMS containing only half the number of items but generally retaining the psychometric qualities of the original measure. The 18-item Social Discrimination and Maltreatment Scale-Short Form (SDMS-SF) consists of six SDMS stem items (e.g., I have been disrespected, People made cruel or demeaning jokes about me) each of which is rated according to how often it had happened "because of my sex," "because of my race," and "because of my sexual orientation or gender identity." In the SDMS online sample (N = 528), SDMS-SF Sexism, Racism, and Cisheterosexism subscales were validated by confirmatory factor analysis and were internally consistent (α = .91-.95) and highly correlated with the original SDMS subscales (r = .94 in all cases). All SDMS-SF subscales correlated with self-reported anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress (mean r = .29), corresponding to a medium effect size. In all but one instance, related SDMS and SDMS-SF subscales did not differ significantly in the strength of their association with symptomatology. Together, these results suggest that the SDMS-SF is a reliable and valid measure of social discrimination, generally equivalent to the SDMS despite containing only half as many items.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会虐待与症状:在多元化在线样本中验证社会歧视和虐待量表-简表。
尽管性别歧视、种族歧视和反lgbtq +(女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、酷儿和其他非异性恋者)行为很普遍,但很少有心理测量学上有效的社会虐待暴露测量方法可以同时评估这些行为。社会歧视和虐待量表(SDMS)符合这一要求,但因此有些冗长(36个项目)。本文介绍了SDMS的一个简短形式,它只包含一半的项目数量,但总体上保留了原始测量的心理测量质量。社会歧视和虐待量表-短表(SDMS- sf)共有18个项目,由六个SDMS stem项目组成(例如,我受到了不尊重,人们对我开了残酷或贬低的玩笑),每个项目都根据“因为我的性别”、“因为我的种族”和“因为我的性取向或性别认同”发生的频率进行评级。在SDMS在线样本(N = 528)中,SDMS- sf性别主义、种族主义和顺异性恋主义分量表经验证性因子分析验证,与原始SDMS分量表具有内部一致性(α = 0.91 ~ 0.95)和高度相关(r = 0.95)。在所有情况下都是94)。所有SDMS-SF子量表均与自我报告的焦虑、抑郁和创伤后应激相关(平均r = 0.29),对应于中等效应量。除一例外,在所有病例中,相关SDMS和SDMS- sf亚量表与症状的关联强度均无显著差异。综上所述,这些结果表明SDMS- sf是一种可靠而有效的社会歧视测量方法,尽管包含的项目数量只有SDMS的一半,但总体上与SDMS相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
How to Evaluate Reports of Intimate Partner Violence? Examining Interpartner Agreement in a Forensic Sample of Different-Sex Couples Where Men are Accused of Intimate Partner Violence. Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment Styles as Factors Associated with Coping Stress Styles Among Iranian Women. Investigating the Impact of Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence on Psychological and Sexual Wellbeing. Universal Sexual Violence Intervention Effects in a Cluster-Randomized Trial: Moderation by Sexual Orientation. Institutional Betrayal in the Criminal and Civil Legal Systems: Exploratory Factor Analysis with a Sample of Black and Hispanic Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1