Journal Article Critique Assignment

Some Better Practices for Measuring Racial and Ethnic Identity Constructs

Janet E. Helms Boston College

Racial and ethnic identity (REI) measures are in danger of becoming conceptually meaningless because of evaluators’ insistence that they conform to measurement models intended to assess unidimensional constructs, rather than the multidimensional constructs necessary to capture the complexity of internal- ized racial or cultural socialization. Some aspects of the intersection of REI theoretical constructs with research design and psychometric practices are discussed, and recommendations for more informed use of each are provided. A table that summarizes some psychometric techniques for analyzing multidimen- sional measures is provided.

Keywords: racial identity, ethnic identity, reliability, validity, factor analysis

In counseling psychology, the measurement of racial identity constructs is a relatively new phenomenon. Arguably, the practice began when Jackson and Kirschner (1973) attempted to introduce complexity into the measurement of Black students’ racial identity by using a single categorical item with multiple options (e.g., “Black,” “Negro”) that the students could use to describe them- selves. Helms and Parham (used in Parham & Helms, 1981) and Helms and Carter (1990) built on the idea that assessment of individual differences in racial identity is important, and they added complexity to the measurement process by (a) developing measures that were based on racial identity theoretical frame- works, (b) using multiple items to assess the constructs inherent to the theories, and (c) asking participants to use continua (i.e., 5-point Likert scales) rather than categories to self-describe. These principles underlie the Black Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (BRIAS; formerly RIAS–B) and White Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (WRIAS). Journal Article Critique Assignment

In response to perceived conceptual, methodological, or content concerns with Helms and associates’ racial identity measures, many rebuttal measures followed. Rebuttal measures are scales that the new scale originator(s) specifically described as correc- tions for one or more such deficiencies in preexisting identity measures (e.g., Phinney, 1992, p. 157). Subsequent measures have tended to rely on the previously listed basic measurement princi- ples introduced by Parham and Helms (1981), although the theo- retical rationales for the measures have varied. Phinney’s Multi- group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), the most frequently used of the rebuttal measures to date, added the principle of measuring “ethnic” rather than “racial identity,” which she seemingly viewed as interchangeable constructs. The MEIM also introduced the principle of measuring the same identity constructs across racial or ethnic groups rather than group-specific constructs within them.

The BRIAS and WRIAS may be thought of as representative of a class of identity measures in which opposing stages, statuses, or

schemas are assessed, whereas the MEIM may be conceptualized as representative of a class of measures in which different behav- iors or attitudes are used to assess levels of commitment to a single group (i.e., one’s own). Consequently, these measures are used as exemplars of their classes in subsequent discussions. The two classes of measures imply some similar as well as some different desirable practices with respect to research design, measurement or psychometrics, and interpretation that have not been addressed in the racial or ethnic identity literature heretofore. In fact, virtually no literature exists that focuses specifically on good practices for using or evaluating already developed theory-based racial or ethnic identity (REI) measures.

It is important to describe better practices for using already developed REI scales to avoid oversimplifying essentially com- plex measurement issues that are often inherent in REI theoretical constructs. The primary sources of my belief that a discussion of better practices is necessary are my experiences reviewing manu- scripts, submitting manuscripts, advising researchers, and being fully engaged in REI research. Therefore, the purposes of this article are to make explicit better practices for designing research and conducting psychometric analyses when using REI measures to study identity constructs with new samples. I sometimes use published studies to illustrate a practice or procedure; in most instances, the studies were selected because their authors reported results in enough detail to permit the studies’ use for illustrative purposes. More generally, the article is divided into two broad sections, research design practices and psychometric practices. The first section addresses conceptual issues pertinent to research design; the psychometric section addresses scale development concerns. Journal Article Critique Assignment

Research Design Practices

The content of REI scales is intended to reflect standard samples of particular types of life experiences (racial vs. ethnic) as postu- lated by the relevant theory. A central empirical question with respect to researchers’ use of REI scales is whether racial identity and ethnic identity scales measure the same constructs. However, the question cannot be adequately addressed if researchers do not use research design practices that are congruent with the theoret-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janet E. Helms, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psy- chology, Boston College, 317 Campion Hall, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: helmsja@bc.edu

Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 54, No. 3, 235–246 0022-0167/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.235

235

ical model(s) underlying each scale(s) under study. In this section, I (a) discuss some conceptual issues related to measuring racial identity and ethnic identity as potentially different constructs, (b) discuss some poor practices that obscure differences if they exist, and (c) proffer some better practices.

Differentiating Racial Identity From Ethnic Identity

In REI research designs, if the researcher’s intent is to substitute one class of REI measures for the other, then it is important to demonstrate that the two types of measures assess the same racial or ethnic constructs. Factors to consider are (a) conceptualization of the research question, (b) sample selection, (c) use of other measures for assessing one type of identity rather than the other, and (d) comparability of validity evidence within and across REI measures.

Racial Identity Scales as Replacements for Racial Categories

Racial groups or categories are not psychological constructs because they do not connote any explicit behaviors, traits, or biological or environmental conditions (Helms, Jernigan, & Mascher, 2005). Instead racial categories are sociopolitical con- structions that society uses to aggregate people on the basis of ostensible biological characteristics (Helms, 1990). Because racial categories are null constructs, Helms et al. (2005) contended that they should not be used as the conceptual focus (e.g., independent variables) for empirical studies but may be used to describe or define samples or issues. Ascribed racial-group membership im- plies different group-level racial socialization experiences that vary according to whether the group is accorded advantaged or disadvantaged status in society. The content of racial-identity scales is individual group members’ internalization of the racial socialization (e.g., discrimination, undeserved privileges) that per- tains to their group. Journal Article Critique Assignment

Ascribed racial group defines the type of life experiences to which a person is exposed and that are available for internalizing (i.e., group oppression or privilege). For example, Black Ameri- cans internalize different racial identities than White Americans, and, conversely, White Americans internalize different racial iden- tities than Black Americans. Also, the nature of the racial identities of Americans and immigrants or other nationals differs if they have not experienced similar racial socialization during their life- times. Thus, racial identity theories are intended to describe group- specific development in particular sociopolitical contexts.

Racial identity measures are designed to assess the differential impact of racial dynamics on individuals’ psychological develop- ment. One expects items in racial identity scales or inventories to include some mention of race, racial groups, or conditions that commonly would be construed as racial in nature (e.g., discrimi- nation or advantage on the basis of skin color). For example, Helms and Carter’s (1990) WRIAS consists of five 10-item scales, each of which assesses the differential internalization of societal anti-Black racism on Whites’ identity development. Relevant sam- pling and measurement concerns are specifying samples and mea- sures for which race and racism in various forms are presumably relevant constructs.

Ethnic Groups as Proxies for Theoretical Constructs

Ethnicity refers to the cultural practices (e.g., customs, language, values) of a group of people, but the group need not be the same ascribed racial group. Betancourt and López (1993) use the term ethnic group to connote membership in a self-identified kinship group, defined by specific cultural values, language, and traditions, and that engages in transmission of the group’s culture to its members. Ethnic identity refers to commitment to a cultural group and engagement in its cultural practices (e.g., culture, religion), irrespective of racial ascriptions. Because ethnic groups imply psychological culture-defined constructs, the constructs rather than the categories should be used as conceptual focuses of studies (e.g., independent variables).

The content domain of ethnic identity measures is internalized experiences of ethnic cultural socialization. Phinney and associates (Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990) initially developed the MEIM to assess adolescents’ search for and commitment to an ethnic identity in a manner consistent with Erikson’s (1968) mul- tistage pychosocial identity theory and without regard to group- specific cultural components. Originally, she conceptualized eth- nic identity as “a continuous variable [construct or scale], ranging from the lack of exploration and commitment . . . to evidence of both exploration and commitment, reflected in efforts to learn more about one’s background” (Phinney, 1992, p. 161). Her con- tinuous scale was composed of items assessing several dimensions of identity (e.g., ethnic behaviors, affirmation, and belonging); hence, it was a multidimensional scale (Helms, Henze, Sass, & Mifsud, 2006), with a focus on cultural characteristics that are assumed to be relevant to individuals across ethnic groups.

Although the structure of the MEIM has varied, its underlying conceptual theme is conformance to ethnic culture rather than exposure to racism. The conceptual, sampling, and measurement issues specific to ethnic identity measures pertain to identifying participants who might be reasonably expected to engage in the cultural practices of the ethnic cultural kinship group in question and ensuring that ethnic identity measures assess relevant culture- related rather than race-inspired psychological construct(s). Journal Article Critique Assignment