Analysis of the social consequences and value implications of the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS): implications for measurement of discrimination in health research.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-20 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2021.1969980
Allie Slemon, V Susan Dahinten, Cheyanne Stones, Vicky Bungay, Colleen Varcoe
{"title":"Analysis of the social consequences and value implications of the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS): implications for measurement of discrimination in health research.","authors":"Allie Slemon,&nbsp;V Susan Dahinten,&nbsp;Cheyanne Stones,&nbsp;Vicky Bungay,&nbsp;Colleen Varcoe","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2021.1969980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) is one of the most widely used measures of discrimination in health research, and has been useful for capturing the impact of discrimination on health. However, psychometric analysis of this measure has been predominantly among Black Americans, with limited examination of its effectiveness in capturing discrimination against other social groups. This paper explores the theoretical and historical foundations of the EDS, and draws on the analytic framework of Messick's theory of unified validity to examine the effectiveness of the EDS in capturing diverse experiences of discrimination. Encompassing both social consequences and value implications, Messick's unified validity contends that psychometric evaluation alone is insufficient to justify instrument use or ensure social resonance of findings. We argue that despite the robust psychometric properties and utility in addressing anti-Black race-related discrimination, the theoretical foundations and research use of the EDS have yet to respond to current discrimination theory, particularly intersectionality. This paper concludes with guidance for researchers in using the EDS in health research across diverse populations, including in data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2021.1969980","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) is one of the most widely used measures of discrimination in health research, and has been useful for capturing the impact of discrimination on health. However, psychometric analysis of this measure has been predominantly among Black Americans, with limited examination of its effectiveness in capturing discrimination against other social groups. This paper explores the theoretical and historical foundations of the EDS, and draws on the analytic framework of Messick's theory of unified validity to examine the effectiveness of the EDS in capturing diverse experiences of discrimination. Encompassing both social consequences and value implications, Messick's unified validity contends that psychometric evaluation alone is insufficient to justify instrument use or ensure social resonance of findings. We argue that despite the robust psychometric properties and utility in addressing anti-Black race-related discrimination, the theoretical foundations and research use of the EDS have yet to respond to current discrimination theory, particularly intersectionality. This paper concludes with guidance for researchers in using the EDS in health research across diverse populations, including in data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings.

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
日常歧视量表(EDS)的社会后果和价值含义分析:对健康研究中歧视测量的含义。
日常歧视量表(EDS)是健康研究中使用最广泛的歧视衡量标准之一,对于捕捉歧视对健康的影响非常有用。然而,对这一措施的心理测量分析主要是在美国黑人中进行的,对其在捕捉对其他社会群体的歧视方面的有效性的研究有限。本文探讨了EDS的理论基础和历史基础,并借鉴梅西克统一效度理论的分析框架,考察了EDS在捕捉不同歧视经验方面的有效性。包含社会后果和价值含义,梅西克的统一效度认为,仅靠心理测量评估不足以证明工具使用的合理性或确保结果的社会共鸣。我们认为,尽管心理测量学在解决反黑人种族歧视方面具有强大的特性和效用,但EDS的理论基础和研究用途尚未对当前的歧视理论做出反应,特别是交叉性。本文最后为研究人员在不同人群的卫生研究中使用EDS提供了指导,包括数据收集、分析和结果展示。
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
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Drug consumption stigma and patient legitimacy: experiences of people who use drugs seeking care for chronic non-cancer pain in Nigeria. Gut feelings and lived experiences: a qualitative study of 'anti-diet' dietitians' and psychologists' motivations and experiences regarding the weight-neutral approach. Shifting solutions: tracking transformations of drugs, health and the 'human' through human rights processes in Australia. Masculine enhancement as health or pathology: gender and optimisation discourses in health promotion materials on performance and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs). The good pain patient: a critical evaluation of patients' self-presentations in specialist pain clinics.
×
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