Discrimination is associated with numerous psychological health outcomes over the life course. The nine-item Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) is one of the most widely used measures of discrimination; however, this nine-item measure may not be feasible in large-scale population health surveys where a shortened discrimination measure would be advantageous. The current study examined the construct validity of a combined two-item discrimination measure adapted from the EDS by Add Health (N = 14,839) as compared to the full nine-item EDS and a two-item EDS scale (parallel to the adapted combined measure) used in the National Survey of American Life (NSAL; N = 1,111) and National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) studies (N = 1,055). Results identified convergence among the EDS scales, with high item-total correlations, convergent validity, and criterion validity for psychological outcomes, thus providing evidence for the construct validity of the two-item combined scale. Taken together, the findings provide support for using this reduced scale in studies where the full EDS scale is not available.
Disparities across race, gender, and class are important targets of descriptive research. But rather than only describe disparities, research would ideally inform interventions to close those gaps. The gap-closing estimand quantifies how much a gap (e.g. incomes by race) would close if we intervened to equalize a treatment (e.g. access to college). Drawing on causal decomposition analyses, this type of research question yields several benefits. First, gap-closing estimands place categories like race in a causal framework without making them play the role of the treatment (which is philosophically fraught for non-manipulable variables). Second, gap-closing estimands empower researchers to study disparities using new statistical and machine learning estimators designed for causal effects. Third, gap-closing estimands can directly inform policy: if we sampled from the population and actually changed treatment assignments, how much could we close gaps in outcomes? I provide open-source software (the R package gapclosing) to support these methods.