Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2022 Jan 13;28(4):503–512. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000508

The Scale of Ethnic Experience-Short Form in Spanish and English: Psychometric Findings from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study

Vanessa L Malcarne 1, Erin L Merz 2, Patricia Gonzalez 3, Carmen R Isasi 4, Elena L Navas-Nacher 5, Krista M Perreira 6, Sheila F Castañeda 1, Frank J Penedo 7, Linda C Gallo 1
PMCID: PMC9869708  NIHMSID: NIHMS1834022  PMID: 35025545

Abstract

Objectives.

To evaluate the psychometric properties and cross-group equivalence of scores from Spanish and English long and short forms of the Scale of Ethnic Experience (SEE; Malcarne et al., 2006) in a multi-site representative cohort from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study.

Methods.

Hispanic/Latino adults (N = 5,313) completed a battery of measures, including the original 32-item SEE, in their preferred language of Spanish or English. A 12-item version of the SEE, comprised of three items representing each of the four original subscales, was created and evaluated for invariance across language and self-identified heritage (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, South American). Internal consistency reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of the subscales were also evaluated.

Results.

Results of confirmatory factor analysis did not support the four-subscale structure of the original 32-item SEE (Ethnic Identity, Perceived Discrimination, Social Affiliation, Mainstream Comfort). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported the structural invariance of the SEE-Short Form across language and heritage groups. Patterns for convergent and discriminant validity were generally within expected effect sizes and directions, and consistent across language and heritage.

Conclusions.

Psychometric findings support the utility of the newly developed 12-item short form of the SEE for measuring multiple dimensions of ethnic experience in Hispanic/Latino adults in the United States.

Keywords: short form, psychometrics, ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino, Spanish

The Scale of Ethnic Experience (SEE; Malcarne et al., 2006) was created to measure multiple dimensions of ethnicity-related non-linguistic constructs across ethnic/racial groups in the United States. The 32-item self-report scale was originally developed based on data from college students who self-identified as African American, Filipino American, Mexican American, or Caucasian American. Factor analysis yielded four subscales consistent across groups: Ethnic Identity (strength of one’s identification with one’s ethnic/racial group), Perceived Discrimination (perception that one’s ethnic/racial group is the object of discrimination), Social Affiliation (preference for affiliation with members of one’s ethnic/racial group), and Mainstream Comfort (sense of oneself as belonging to “mainstream” American culture). There is no total score. Psychometric evidence supported the reliability and validity (concurrent, structural) of the SEE subscale scores across these groups.

The SEE has been used in studies to investigate dimensions of ethnic/racial experience in diverse samples (e.g., Brittian et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2015; Donovan et al., 2013; Huynh, Devos, & Goldberg, 2014; Thomas et al., 2006; Tucker, Wingate, & O’Keefe, 2016). However, the SEE is long at 32 items, placing burden on participants and limiting its use in research studies assessing multiple constructs. At times, this has led to individual subscales of the SEE being administered rather than the entire measure, reducing its ability to assess multiple dimensions of ethnicity (e.g., Brittian et al., 2015; Huynh et al., 2014). Further, the SEE was developed and validated only in English, limiting its utility across language groups, and raising questions about whether existing evidence supporting its reliability and validity might be restricted to more highly acculturated (i.e., English language preference) or educated members of ethnic/racial groups. The English version of the SEE has been used in studies with Hispanic/Latino samples (e.g., Crawford et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2017), but there has been virtually no psychometric evaluation of the SEE in Hispanic/Latino samples. No Spanish version of the SEE had been developed or psychometrically evaluated, and thus it cannot be assumed that a translation would perform equivalently in both languages. Moreover, the Hispanic/Latino population in the United States represents diverse cultural heritages. While there are certainly some shared norms, beliefs, and experiences across groups, it should not be assumed that a measure will perform equivalently across heritage (e.g., Corral & Landrine, 2010).

Recently, a Spanish version of the 32-item SEE was developed via forward and backward translation by bilingual teams with reconciliation between versions and then administered to a large community sample of Hispanic/Latino American adults as part of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study (Gallo et al., 2014). Respondents chose whether to respond to the SEE in Spanish or English. An important aim was to evaluate the structural validity and measurement invariance of the SEE for the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample. Another important aim was to develop a more efficient, briefer form of the measure that would show invariance of structure and evidence of consistent convergent/discriminant validity findings across language and heritage subgroups. Consequently, we utilized the large and diverse HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study dataset to select a subset of SEE items that would maintain the four-subscale structure while showing good model fit, and that would demonstrate equivalence across language and heritage groups. Three items were considered the minimum that could be used to represent each of the four dimensions. We followed recommended practices for developing short forms (e.g., Smith et al., 2000). The final set of 12 items (see Table 2) was chosen by a team that included the original author of the SEE, and that considered several factors simultaneously: 1) significant and higher item loadings from CFAs of the total sample and the Spanish and English subgroups; 2) items with high inter-item correlations with other items on the same subscale for the total sample and both Spanish and English groups; and 3) if there were several items that met these criteria, items whose content was judged to best reflect the intended content of the particular subscale.

Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings for the Scale of Ethnic Experience-Short Form; Total N = 5,313

SEE Item Identity Discrimination Affiliation Comfort
20. Being a member of my ethnic group is an important part of who I am. .68
23. My parents gave me a strong sense of cultural values. .54
25. I believe that it is important to take part in holidays that celebrate my ethnic group. .55
2. Generally speaking, my ethnic group is respected in America. (R) .75
3. My ethnic group has been treated well in American society. (R) .82
21. Discrimination against my ethnic group is not a problem in America. (R) .43
15. I think that friendships work best when people are from the same ethnic group. .77
18. I find it easiest to trust people from my own ethnic group. .77
22. I prefer my close friends to be from my own ethnic group. .78
6. I feel like I belong to mainstream American culture. .64
9. I’m what most people think of as a typical American. .77
17. I think of myself as a typical American. .82
Open in a new tab

The present study evaluated the psychometric properties and invariance of scores from the Spanish and English long forms of the SEE as well as the new Spanish and English 12-item short forms, across: 1) Spanish vs. English language preference; 2) Hispanic/Latino heritage groups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, South American). The anticipated orthogonal four-factor structure was evaluated, and reliability coefficients of factors were reported. Convergent/discriminant validity for subscale scores was evaluated via predicted relationships with sociodemographic and cultural variables. Specifically, we expected that Hispanic/Latino adults with a more traditional cultural orientation (i.e., had lived in the U.S. fewer years, reported a preference for Spanish, scored higher on measures of traditional cultural values of simpatía, machismo, marianismo, and familism) would score higher on Ethnic Identity and Social Affiliation and lower on Mainstream Comfort (Campos et al., 2019; Castillo, Perez, Castillo, & Ghosheh, 2010; Castillo et al., 2021; Griffith, Joe, Chatham, & Simpson, 1998; Nunez et al., 2016; Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-Stable, 1987; Sotomayor-Peterson, Figueredo, Christensen, & Taylor, 2012). We expected that Perceived Discrimination scores would be uniquely positively associated with scores from a stand-alone measure of perceived discrimination (Brondolo et al., 2005); that Ethnic Identity scores would be uniquely positively associated with scores from items from a legacy ethnic identity measure (Roberts et al., 1999) assessing ethnic belonging and pride; and that Social Affiliation scores, reflecting preference for social affiliation with members of one’s ethnic group, would be uniquely negatively associated with scores from a legacy Hispanic acculturation scale (Marin et al., 1987) representing lower orientation toward ethnic social relations.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

This study used data from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study (N = 5,313). The HCHS/SOL (N = 16,415) is a population-based, multisite, community-based, prospective cohort study designed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of chronic disease and associated risk and protective factors among Hispanics/Latinos from various heritage groups (Central American, Cuban, Domnican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American). Participants were recruited and are representative of four U.S. metropolitan areas: Miami, FL; San Diego, CA; Bronx, NY; Chicago, IL. The sampling strategy (LaVange et al., 2010) and approach (Sorlie et al., 2010) are described elsewhere. All participants completed a baseline assessment (2008–2011) with physical examination and interview-administered measures. Approximately one-third of the participants in HCHS/SOL completed a separate assessment within nine months of their baseline for the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study, which involved completion of interview-administered measures of sociocultural constructs, including the SEE (Gallo et al., 2014). Participants were compensated $60. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from all study sites, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Measures

All measures were administered in participants’ preferred language of Spanish or English. When Spanish versions of instruments were not available, translations were developed following recommended translation guidelines, including creation, comparison, and reconciliation of independent translations by bilingual/monolingual and bicultural members of Hispanic/Latino heritage groups, followed by pilot-testing and validation of instruments. Tables 4 and 5 present Cronbach’s alphas and McDonald’s omegas for all study measures for the full sample, across language, and across heritage.

Table 4.

Cronbach’s alphas for each measure: Total sample, by language, and by heritage; Total N = 5,313

Measure Full Spanish English Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central Amer. Dominican South Amer.
SEE Identity .62 .60 .67 .60 .63 .62 .56 .65 .59
SEE Discrimination .69 .68 .69 .66 .65 .64 .68 .59 .64
SEE Affiliation .82 .81 .73 .80 .81 .83 .83 .82 .80
SEE Comfort .78 .77 .69 .76 .73 .79 .78 .80 .78
Brief PEDQ-CV .88 .87 .91 .88 .90 .84 .86 .89 .88
Simpatía .75 .76 .75 .76 .74 .77 .71 .74 .72
Traditional Machismo .61 .59 .58 .62 .58 .58 .54 .55 .57
Caballerismo .72 .73 .69 .67 .75 .82 .73 .73 .68
Marianismo: Family Pillar .78 .79 .78 .78 .79 .78 .77 .82 .77
Marianismo: Virtuous & Chaste .81 .81 .79 .81 .79 .82 .77 .78 .83
Marianismo: Subordinate to Others .79 .80 .76 .79 .77 .78 .76 .83 .81
Marianismo: Silencing Self .83 .82 .82 .83 .80 .81 .81 .84 .84
Marianismo: Spiritual Pillar .79 .79 .79 .78 .81 .76 .78 .83 .78
Familism: Obligations .71 .68 .68 .67 .70 .76 .70 .70 .70
Familism: Support .64 .59 .74 .61 .72 .63 .56 .66 .62
Familism: Referents .68 .68 .59 .69 .63 .66 .64 .65 .62
SASH: Ethnic Social Relations .72 .69 .67 .75 .67 .69 .70 .64 .69
SASH: Language .93 .80 .76 .91 .92 .89 .89 .88 .89
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

McDonald’s omegas for each measure: Total sample, by language, and by heritage; Total N = 5,313

Measure Full Spanish English Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central Amer. Dominican South Amer.
SEE Identity .62 .60 .67 .61 .63 .62 .56 .65 .61
SEE Discrimination .71 .70 .71 .69 .69 .66 .69 .63 .68
SEE Affiliation .82 .81 .73 .80 .81 .83 .83 .82 .81
SEE Comfort .79 .77 .72 .77 .74 .79 .78 .80 .79
Brief PEDQ-CV .88 .88 .91 .89 .90 .85 .86 .90 .89
Simpatía .74 .74 .77 .75 .74 .76 .69 .73 .71
Traditional Machismo .61 .59 .58 .62 .58 .59 .55 .55 .57
Caballerismo .72 .73 .69 .67 .75 .83 .73 .73 .68
Marianismo: Family Pillar .78 .78 .79 .77 .79 .78 .76 .81 .77
Marianismo: Virtuous & Chaste .83 .83 .80 .83 .81 .84 .79 .80 .85
Marianismo: Subordinate to Others .79 .80 .76 .79 .77 .79 .76 .83 .81
Marianismo: Silencing Self .83 .83 .82 .84 .81 .82 .82 .84 .84
Marianismo: Spiritual Pillar .79 .80 .78 .79 .81 .77 .79 .83 .79
Familism: Obligations .71 .72 .68 .67 .70 .76 .71 .70 .71
Familism: Support .65 .62 .74 .62 .72 .64 .56 .66 .63
Familism: Referents .68 .69 .57 .69 .63 .67 .64 .66 .63
SASH: Ethnic Social Relations .76 .72 .72 .77 .71 .73 .74 .66 .75
SASH: Language .93 .83 .77 .92 .92 .90 .91 .89 .90
Open in a new tab

Scale of Ethnic Experience (SEE; Malcarne et al., 2006). The 32-item version of the SEE was administered. The SEE-SF yields four three-item subscales: Ethnic Identity, Perceived Discrimination, Social Affiliation, and Mainstream Comfort. The five-point response scale ranges from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Higher scores represent stronger Ethnic Identity, more experiences with Perceived Discrimination, stronger preference for Social Affiliation with one’s own ethnic group, and greater Mainstream Comfort.

Simpatía Scale (Simpatía; Sotomayor-Peterson et al., 2012, 2013). The 10-item version of the Texas Christian University Simpatía scale (Griffith et al., 1998) was used to measure striving for harmonious interpersonal relationships; evidence supports its psychometric properties in the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample (Merz et al., 2016). Responses range from 0 = not important to 4 = extremely important. Higher scores indicate greater simpatía. Alpha was .75 for the present sample.

Machismo gender role beliefs were assessed using eight items from the MAN for Health survey (Ayala et al., 2009). This scale yields two subscales: 1) traditional machismo (hypermasculinity, dominance, emotional restrictiveness; 5 items); and 2) caballerismo (bravery, honor; 3 items). Responses range from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree; higher scores indicate greater machismo/caballerismo. These subscales have been found to be reliable and valid across language groups in the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample (Nuñez et al., 2016). Alphas were .61 (traditional machismo) and .72 (caballerismo) for the present sample.

Marianismo Beliefs Scale (MBS; Castillo et al., 2010). This 24-item scale measures endorsement of traditional feminine gender role behaviors and yields five subscale scores: Family Pillar, Virtuous & Chaste, Subordinate to Others, Silencing Self to Maintain Harmony, and Spiritual Pillar. Responses range from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree; higher scores indicate greater marianismo. For the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample, analysis supported the five-factor structure and equivalence invariance across language versions and Latino heritage groups (Castillo et al., 2020). Alphas ranged from .78 to .83 for the present sample.

Sabogal Familism Scale (Familism; Sabogal et al., 1987). The 14-item Familism scale yields three subscales that measure attitudes about 1) familial expectations (Obligations), 2) perceived support from the family (Support), and 3) family as referents (Referents). Responses range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; higher scores represent greater familism. Analysis of data from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study supports the psychometric properties of the Familism Scale in Hispanics/Latinos (Campos et al., 2019). Alphas ranged from .64 to .71 for the present sample.

Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version (Brief PEDQ-CV; Brondolo et al., 2005) measures perceptions of exclusion, discrimination, threat, and stigma related to ethnicity; analysis from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample supports its psychometric properties for Hispanics/Latinos (Arellano-Morales et al., 2015). The scale contains 17 items with a frequency response scale (1 = never happened to 5 = happened very often). The total score was used; higher scores represent more exposure to discrimination. Alpha was .88 for the present sample.

Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (SASH; Marin, 1987). This modified 10-item version of the SASH yielded two subscales in HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study cohort via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Ethnic Social Relations and Language (Arellano et al., 2015). Scores range from 1 (representing stronger orientation to traditional culture) to 5 (representing stronger orientation to new culture). Alphas were .72 (Ethnic Social Relations) and .93 (Language) for the present sample.

Two ethnic identity items from the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Roberts et al., 1999) were administered: 1) I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group, and 2) I have pride in my ethnic group. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); each of the two items was scored individually.

Sociodemographic variables collected during the baseline clinic exam included: age, gender (male/female), Hispanic/Latino heritage (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, South American, or multiple), marital status, income (10 categories), education (less than high school/high school or greater), and place of birth/duration of residence in the U.S. (< 10 years, > 10 years, or born in the U.S. (i.e., 50 states and Washington DC).

Statistical Analyses

Data for this study were analyzed in IBM/SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Weights, stratification, or clustering of the complex sampling design were not accounted for in the descriptive analyses given the primary study aim of evaluating the psychometric properties of a single measure. As such, population-based inferences cannot be drawn from the sample description.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the proposed four-factor structure (Ethnic Identity, Perceived Discrimination, Social Affiliation, Mainstream Comfort) for the full sample. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) was used to examine measurement invariance of this model, first across language (Spanish, English), and then across heritage (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, South American).

A series of nested models were fit to the data for each MCFA, following Vandenburg and Lance (2000). First, a configural invariance model was tested to determine whether the four-factor structure existed across groups with no equality constraints imposed. Second, a metric invariance model was tested by constraining factor loadings to equivalence across groups. Third, a scalar invariance model was tested by constraining item intercepts to equivalence across groups. Finally, a factor variance/covariance model was tested by constraining the variability of each factor and the covariance between factors to equivalence across groups.

For all factorial analyses, the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 (S-B χ2; Satorra & Bentler, 2001), which accounts for multivariate non-normality, was reported, but given that likelihood ratio χ2 statistics have numerous limitations, including dependence on sample size, descriptive fit indices were used to determine model fit. The comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were evaluated, as recommended by Bentler (2007). Benchmarks for acceptable (≥ .90 for the CFI, and ≤ .08 for the SRMR and RMSEA) and good (≥ .95 for the CFI, and ≤ .05 for the SRMR and RMSEA) model fit were based on widely used recommendations (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the MCFAs, change in statistical fit (ΔS-B χ2) was reported. However, fit was primarily determined by inspecting the ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR. Invariance at each level of restriction was determined by ≤ .01 decrease in CFI (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) and ≤ .01 increase in SRMR and RMSEA (Chen, 2007). A model was deemed to fit if at least two of the three criteria were met.

Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega (using methods described by Hayes & Coutts, 2020) was calculated for each SEE-SF subscale for the full sample, by language, and by heritage group. Bivariate associations (ANOVA or correlations) were examined for each SEE-SF subscale with place of birth/duration of U.S. residence, preferred language, scores for all cultural values, gender, age, education, and income.

Results

See Table 1 for sample characteristics. The full HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study sample (N = 5,313) was 62% women and averaged 46.6 years of age. Most participants were administered measures in Spanish (78.5%). Heritage groups were as follows: Mexican (39.1%), Puerto Rican (16.6%), Cuban (14.6%), Central American (10.4%), Dominican (10.1%) South American (6.6%); 2.6% indicated more than one group, or other. Half were married or cohabitating. The sample generally reported low income and low education levels. More than half of participants reported household income of </= $20,000, and 36.4% had not completed high school. Most participants had been born outside of the United States (82.7%); 59.2% had lived in the United States at least 10 years.

Table 1.

Unweighted Sample Characteristics: M (SD) or n (%); Total N = 5,313

Variable Full Sample
Age (range: 18–75 years) 46.64 (13.65)
Women 3,299 (62.1%)
Spanish language interview 4,169 (78.5%)
Hispanic/Latino heritage (n = 5,309)
 Mexican 2,080 (39.1%)
 Puerto Rican 880 (16.6%)
 Cuban 775 (14.6%)
 Central American 553 (10.4%)
 Dominican 534 (10.1%)
 South American 350 (6.6%)
 More than one or other 137 (2.6%)
Married or cohabitating (n = 5,304) 2,648 (49.9%)
Annual household income (n = 4,872)
 ≤ $20,000 2,561 (52.5%)
 $20,001-$40,000 1,577 (32.4%)
 >$40,000 734 (15.1%)
Finished high school or beyond (n = 5,304) 3,381 (63.6%)
Years in the United States (n = 5,302)
 < 10 1,247 (23.5%)
 ≥ 10 3,137 (59.2%)
 U.S. Born 917 (17.3%)
Brief PEDQ-CV (n = 5,295) 25.18 (8.74)
Simpatia (n = 5,235) 26.51 (5.00)
Traditional Machismo (n = 5,197) 12.30 (2.47)
Caballerismo (n = 5,281) 9.63 (1.39)
Marianismo: Family Pillar (n = 5,265) 15.95 (2.14)
Marianismo: Virtuous & Chaste (n = 5,179) 14.03 (2.66)
Marianismo: Subordinate to Others (n = 5,199 10.45 (2.51)
Marianismo: Silencing Self (n = 5,223) 11.83(2.88)
Marianismo: Spiritual Pillar (n = 5,246) 8.23 (1.71)
Familism: Obligations (n = 5,298) 25.31(2.76)
Familism: Support (n = 5,303) 11.80 (1.85)
Familism: Referents (n = 5,295) 16.43 (3.79)
SASH: Ethnic Social Relations (n = 5,118) 2.19 (0.60)
SASH: Language (n = 5,306) 1.95 (1.07)
MEIM: Strong Sense of Belonging (n = 5,274) 3.08 (.70)
MEIM: Pride in Ethnic Group (n = 5,285) 3.33 (.59)
SEE-SF: Ethnic Identity (n = 5,264) 11.98 (1.88)
SEE-SF: Perceived Discrimination (n = 5,254) 8.63 (2.63)
SEE-SF: Social Affiliation (n = 5,284) 9.15 (3.00)
SEE-SF: Mainstream Comfort (n = 5,236) 8.24 (2.76)
Open in a new tab

Note. ns in left hand column represent data available from full sample for that variable if there were missing data

Structural validity of the 32-item SEE (long form) was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the anticipated four-factor model in the full sample. Unfortunately, model fit was poor (S-B χ2 [458] = 9778.93; CFI = .701, SRMR = .065; RMSEA = .091), with problematic (i.e., poorly loading) items identified for three of four subscales (see Supplementary Files 1a-c). Given the inadequate fit of the four-factor model using the long form, only the SEE-SF was evaluated in all subsequent analyses.

For the full sample, the four-factor model of the SEE-SF (S-B χ2 [48] = 374.06, p < .001) displayed good model fit on all three descriptive fit indices, CFI = .98, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .04. The factor loadings were generally large and statistically significant (see Table 2). The unstandardized factor variances (Φs = .31 to .88) were also statistically significant. The significant interfactor correlations were small to moderate, as expected: Ethnic Identity-Perceived Discrimination (r = −.10, p < .001); Ethnic Identity-Social Affiliation (r = .39, p < .001); Ethnic Identity-Mainstream Comfort (r = .07, p = .002); Perceived Discrimination-Social Affiliation (r = −.15, p < .001); Perceived Discrimination-Mainstream Comfort (r = −.25, p < .001); the Social Affiliation-Mainstream Comfort correlation (r = −.01, p = .477) was not statistically significant. Cronbach’s alphas for the three-item subscales were: Ethnic Identity = .62, Perceived Discrimination = .69, SA = .82, Mainstream Comfort = .78. McDonald’s omegas for the three-item subscales were: Ethnic Identity = .62, Perceived Discrimination = .71, Social Affiliation = .82, Mainstream Comfort = .79 (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 3 presents fit indices for the MCFA models across Spanish and English languages from the least to most restrictive models. The four-factor structure of the SEE-SF demonstrated good configural (equivalent factor structure), metric (equivalent factor loadings), and scalar (equivalent item intercepts) invariance, and acceptable factor variance/covariance (equivalent variability of each factor and covariance between factors). Although ΔCFI between the scalar and metric invariance models and ΔSRMR between the factor variance/covariance and scalar invariance models were sub-optimal, at least two of the three criteria were met at each level, suggesting that SEE-SF subscales achieved measurement invariance across language. Cronbach’s alphas for the three-item Spanish/English subscales were: Ethnic Identity = .60 Spanish, .67 English; Perceived Discrimination = .68 Spanish, .69 English; Social Affiliation = .81 Spanish, .73 English; Mainstream Comfort = .77 Spanish, .69 English. McDonald’s omegas for the three-item Spanish/English subscales were: Ethnic Identity = .60 Spanish, .67 English; Perceived Discrimination = .70 Spanish, .71 English; Social Affiliation = .81 Spanish, .73 English, and Mainstream Comfort = .77 Spanish, .72 English (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 3.

Goodness of Fit Statistics for Factorial Invariance Models across Language and Heritage; Total N = 5,313

Model S-Bχ2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA Reference
Model #		 ΔCFI ΔSRMR ΔRMSEA Δ S-B χ2 Δdf Δp
Spanish 279.02 48 .977 .028 .035
English 129.09 48 .966 .035 .039
1. Configural 408.11 96 .972 .032 .037
2. Metric 449.22 104 .973 .032 .036 1 .001 .000 .001 41.06 8 <.001
3. Scalar 682.86 112 .955 .038 .044 2 .018 .006 .008 256.28 8 <.001
4. Factor 809.05 122 .946 .062 .047 3 .009 .024 .003 128.75 10 <.001
Mexican 273.42 48 .955 .038 .048
Puerto Rican 99.68 48 .975 .033 .035
Cuban 76.82 48 .986 .030 .029
Central American 64.13 48 .988 .031 .025
Dominican 74.84 48 .980 .038 .032
South American 57.19 48 .989 .043 .024
5. Configural 646.08 288 .979 .036 .032
6. Metric 695.95 328 .971 .038 .037 5 .008 .002 .005 48.41 40 .170
7. Scalar 905.35 368 .957 .042 .042 6 .014 .004 .005 229.68 40 <.001
8. Factor 1036.59 418 .951 .055 .042 7 .006 .013 .000 131.63 50 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. S-Bχ2 = Satorra-Bentler chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation

Table 3 also presents fit indices for the MCFA models across heritage from the least to most restrictive models. Again, the four-factor model demonstrated good configural, metric, and scalar invariance, and acceptable factor variance/covariance invariance. The overall patterns suggested that the SEE-SF subscales achieved measurement invariance across heritage groups, although the ΔCFI and ΔSRMR were again sub-optimal for the metric-scalar and scalar-factor variance/covariance model comparisons, respectively. Ranges of Cronbach’s alphas for the three-item subscales for all ancestries were: Ethnic Identity = .56 to .65, Perceived Discrimination = .59 to .68, Social Affiliation = .80 to .83, Mainstream Comfort = .73 to .80. Ranges of McDonald’s omegas for the three-item subscales for all heritage groups were: Ethnic Identity = .56 to .65, Perceived Discrimination = .63 to .69, Social Affiliation = .80 to .83, and Mainstream Comfort = .74 to .80 (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 6 presents convergent and discriminant analyses for the SEE scales across the full sample. Convergent and discriminant analyses were also conducted separately for the two language groups, and the six heritage groups. These can be found in Supplementary Tables S6a-h; patterns from these analyses matched those from the full sample. For the full sample, fewer years living in the U.S. and preference for Spanish were significantly associated with higher scores on Social Affiliation and lower scores on Mainstream Comfort, as expected. Social Affiliation scores were highest among immigrants who had been in the U.S. for < 10 years and persons who preferred Spanish, as expected. Mainstream Comfort scores were highest among men born in the U.S. and who preferred English, also as expected. Contrary to expectation, Ethnic Identity scores did not vary by place of birth/duration of U.S. residence or language preference. Perceived Discrimination scores were highest among U.S.-born persons and those who preferred English and were more educated.

Table 6.

Convergent Validity: Bivariate relationships with Scale of Ethnic Experience-Short Form subscale scores; Total N = 5,313

Convergent Validity Variable Identity Discrimination Affiliation Comfort
Gendera Women 12.02 (1.87)* 8.69 (2.64) 9.10 (3.04) 8.04 (2.74)***
Men 11.91 (1.88)* 8.55 (2.62) 9.23 (2.95) 8.57 (2.76)***
Years in the USa < 10 12.04 (1.74) 8.06 (2.62)*** 9.70 (2.96)** 7.32 (2.56)***
≥ 10 11.96 (1.89) 8.62 (2.61)*** 9.39 (3.01)** 8.16 (2.71)***
U.S. Born 11.96 (2.03) 9.49 (2.50)*** 7.57 (2.48)*** 9.75 (2.57)***
Languagea Spanish 12.00 (1.83) 8.41 (2.63)*** 9.66 (2.97)*** 7.75 (2.64)***
English 11.89 (2.04) 9.44 (2.47)*** 7.31 (2.31)*** 10.01 (2.43)***
Education < HS 11.96 (1.81) 8.25 (2.51)*** 10.02 (2.95)*** 8.59 (2.70)***
≥ HS 11.99 (1.92) 8.86 (2.68)*** 8.66 (2.92)*** 8.05 (2.77)***
Ageb .02 −.12*** .18*** .07***
Income (10 categories)c −.02 −.11*** .15*** −.04**
Brief PEDQ-CVb .05** .27*** −.02 .00
Simpatíab .17*** −.04** −.06*** .04**
Traditional Machismob .08*** −.25*** .32*** .12***
Caballerismob .18*** −.03* .02 .01
Marianismo: Family Pillarb .28*** −.06*** .12*** .04**
Marianismo: Virtuous & Chasteb .13*** −.13*** .20*** .14***
Marianismo: Subordinate to Othersb .01 −.25*** .29*** .22***
Marianismo: Silencing Selfb −.02 −.22*** .30*** .19***
Marianismo: Spiritual Pillarb .20*** −.15*** .25*** .11***
Familism: Obligationsb .34*** −.10*** .12*** .04**
Familism: Supportb .25*** −.11*** .14*** .04**
Familism: Referentsb .22*** −.27*** .39*** .15***
SASH: Ethnic Social Relations −.06*** .11*** −.36*** .16***
SASH: Language −.06*** .20*** −.39*** .30***
MEIM: Strong Sense of Belonging .17*** −.03* .12*** −.03*
MEIM: Pride in Ethnic Group .22*** −.02 .11*** −.04**
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

M(SD) from ANOVAs;

b

Pearson rs;

c

Spearman rs; HS = High School;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

The expected pattern of higher scores on measures representing more traditional cultural orientation (simpatía, machismo, marianismo, and familism) being significantly associated with higher scores on Ethnic Identity and Social Affiliation was found. Ethnic Identity scores shared a medium-sized association with Familism (Obligations), and small associations with all other variables except for Marianismo Silencing Self. Social Affiliation scores shared a moderate association with Traditional Machismo, Marianismo Silencing Self, Familism Referents, and small associations with all other variables except Caballerismo. However, the expected pattern of associations of scores reflecting higher traditional cultural orientation with lower scores on Mainstream Comfort were not found; instead, there was a pattern of nonsignificant or small, significant positive correlations. As predicted, Perceived Discrimination scores were significantly positively associated with scores from the Brief PEDQ-CV (r = .27, p < .001), while associations of the other three SEE subscales with the Brief PEDQ-CV were very small. Also as expected, scores on the two MEIM items (Strong Sense of Belonging; Pride in Ethnic Group) were most strongly associated with scores on Ethnic Identity. And, as expected, lower scores on the SASH Ethnic Social Relations subscale (reflecting more traditional orientation toward ethnic group social relations) were associated with higher Social Affiliation scores on the SEE.

Patterns of convergent and discriminant findings were similar for the two language and six heritage groups (see Supplementary Tables S6a-h). Higher scores on measures representing more traditional cultural orientation (simpatía, machismo, marianismo, and familism) were generally associated with high scores on Ethnic Identity and Social Affiliation. Smaller, positive correlations were found with scores on Mainstream Comfort, contrary to expectation. Perceived Discrimination Scores were positively associated with scores from the Brief PEDQ-CV; other SEE subscales showed nonsignificant or very small associations with the Brief PEDQ-CV in language and heritage groups. Scores on the two MEIM items were most strongly associated with scores on Ethnic Identity, and scores on the SASH Ethnic Social Relations subscale were most strongly associated with scores on Social Affiliation.

Discussion

The present study evaluated psychometric properties and measurement invariance of scores from English and Spanish versions of the original 32-item SEE and the new 12-item SEE-SF, a newly created brief version, in a large and diverse community sample of Hispanic/Latino adults from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study. HCHS/SOL is the largest health study of Hispanic/Latino populations in the United States, and the Sociocultural Ancillary Study combines HCHS/SOL parent study data with in-depth cultural information on more than 5,000 participants, including persons with both English and Spanish language preference, and members of six major heritage groups: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, and South American.

An original aim of the present study was to evaluate the cross-language and heritage invariance of the original SEE, with a secondary aim of developing a short form, due to the length of the 32-item SEE. Unfortunately, confirmatory factor analysis evaluating the four-factor structure of the SEE showed poor model fit, and several poorly loading items were identified. Although the English version of the SEE has been used with Hispanic/Latino samples, it has rarely undergone structural or other psychometric evaluation. Also, the original measure development sample (Malcarne et al., 2006), which included self-identified Mexican Americans, was composed of college students, and validation in community samples remains limited. The large and diverse community-based sample represented in the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study provided the opportunity to both refine and shorten the SEE, selecting items that would maintain the four-factor structure while showing equivalence across language and heritage groups.

Overall, psychometric findings supported the use of the 12-item short version of the SEE in both languages, and across heritage groups. The orthogonal four-factor structure of the original long form (representing subscales measuring Ethnic Identity, Perceived Discrimination, Social Affiliation, and Mainstream Comfort) was replicated in the SEE-SF, with three items representing each subscale. CFA provided evidence for invariance of the four-factor structure and item loadings across Spanish/English languages and Hispanic/Latino heritage groups. The four subscales showed only small to moderate intercorrelations, for the full sample and across language and heritage groups. This is consistent with a central assumption underlying the SEE (and other multidimensional measures of aspects of ethnicity and acculturation); i.e., that dimensions can vary independently of one another, and that one’s experience of ethnicity is best presented as a profile across the multiple dimensions, rather than as a total score.

Alphas and omegas were also consistent across language and heritage groups. Although only about half of internal consistency coefficients (alphas and omegas) exceeded the widely used cut-off of .7, the scales on the SEE-SF are very brief (3 items each), and this cut-off is considered less applicable to the very short scales that are desirable for efficiency in research settings (Hayes & Coutts, 2020; Rammstedt & Beierlein, 2014; Schweizer, 2011).

Convergent/discriminant validity of SEE-SF scores was generally supported. SEE-SF subscale scores were associated in expected directions with most indicators of cultural orientation; this was true for the full sample and the language and heritage subgroups. In general, stronger ethnic identity (SEE-SF Ethnic Identity subscale) was associated with indicators of a more traditional cultural orientation, including endorsement of aspects of simpatía, machismo, marianismo, and familism. Ethnic identity, as predicted, was positively related to people’s sense of belonging and pride in their ethnic group (MEIM items). A greater preference for social affiliation with one’s ethnic group (SEE-SF Social Affiliation subscale) was also associated, as expected, with indicators of a more traditional cultural orientation, with the exception of simpatía, which was weakly or non-significantly related to social affiliation. As predicted, preference for social affiliation with one’s ethnic group was related to more traditional ethnic social relations (on the SASH).

As expected, respondents who were born in the United States reported the most comfort with U.S. mainstream society (SEE-SF Mainstream Comfort subscale). Also, comfort with the U.S. mainstream was associated with preference for English language usage (via both language preference for completing the study and the SASH Language subscale) and for having social interactions with members outside one’s ethnic group. Interestingly, scores on the SEE-SF Mainstream Comfort subscale, which had been expected to be inversely correlated with traditional cultural orientation indicators (e.g., Marianismo and Familism subscales), instead were either not significantly related, or were positively associated, with generally small effects. This may reflect a more bicultural orientation, in which traditional values and beliefs associated with a person’s ethnic heritage are able to exist concurrently with demands of the broader community (Berry, 1997; Guo et al. 2012).

As expected, people who reported more perceived discrimination against their ethnic group (See-SF Perceived Discrimination subscale) had higher scores on the Brief PEDQ-CV, while Brief PEDQ-CV scores were largely independent of the other three SEE-SF subscales. Although the correlation between the SEE-SF Perceived Discrimination subscale and the Brief PEDQ-CV was smaller than expected, the Brief PEDQ-CV had the strongest association with the Perceived Discrimination subscale of all measured variables. These two measures evaluate different aspects of discrimination. The Brief PEDQ-CV focuses broadly on individual experiences with specific types of discriminatory behavior (e.g., threats, workplace discrimination), whereas the Perceived Discrimination subscale items reflect respondents’ broader beliefs regarding whether their ethnic group experiences significant discrimination in the U.S. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Arellano-Morales et al., 2015; Perreira et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2012), people in the HCHS/SOL sample who reported greater discrimination on the Perceived Discrimination subscale were born in the U.S. or had lived in the U.S. more than 10 years, and preferred to use English. These patterns may reflect the perceptions of experiences with discrimination among this more acculturated group of respondents. Future research is needed to elucidate the contexts, circumstances, and experiences of discrimination, especially in Hispanic/Latino individuals who would be considered well integrated into U.S. society based on U.S. birth/longer duration of time in the U.S., and English language preference.

This study has several limitations. The HCHS/SOL cohort was not representative of all Hispanics/Latinos living in the U.S., but rather of the geographic areas from which sampling took place. The original SEE was administered rather than the 12-item SEE-SF; there could be context and order effects from items on the full scale that have now been removed, and that could result in different findings if the 12-item SEE-SF was administered and evaluated. Relatively low factor loadings for some items in the 3-item Ethnic Identity and Perceived Discrimination scales suggest that further improvement of these subscales may be possible. Also, internal consistency coefficients (alphas and omegas) varied from good to minimally acceptable for the very short subscales. Test-retest reliability was not evaluated, as there was only one administration of the SEE. In some cases, only partial forms of measures were administered due to time constraints (e.g., only two items from the Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure were administered, rather than the full scale). The measure of acculturation used, the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics, uses a response scale in which adoption of the behaviors and attitudes of the new culture is presented in opposition to maintenance of traditional culture; a bidimensional approach in which orientation to both the new and traditional cultures are assessed independently has been recommended (Fox, Merz, Solórzano, & Roesch, 2017).

In conclusion, psychometric results from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study’s large and diverse sample provide support for the multidimensional SEE-SF’s utility to assess perceptions of diverse aspects of ethnic experience in both English and Spanish versions. Because the SEE-SF is newly developed, further study is needed in Hispanic/Latino groups from other geographic areas, as well as in other ethnic/racial groups.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Public Significance Statement:

Self-report questionnaires help us to understand people’s experiences of different aspects of their ethnicity. This study tested a short form of a questionnaire that can be used across ethnic groups, and found it worked well in both English and Spanish, and for Hispanic/Latino people with different heritages.

Footnotes

Author Note

The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos is funded by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to the University of North Carolina (N01-HC65233), University of Miami (N01-HC65234), Albert Einstein College of Medicine (N01-HC65235), Northwestern University (N01-HC65236), and San Diego State University (N01HC65237). The following Institutes/Centers/Offices contribute to the HCHS/SOL through a transfer of funds to the NHLBI: National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Office of Dietary Supplements. The HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study was supported by Grant 1 RC2 HL101649 from the NHLBI/NIH (Gallo/Penedo PIs). The authors thank the staff and participants of HCHS/SOL and the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study for their important contributions.

References

  1. Andresen EM, Malmgren JA, Carter WB, & Patrick DL (1994) Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10(2), 77–84. 10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30622-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arellano-Morales L, Roesch SC, Gallo LC, Emory KT, Molina KM, Gonzalez P, Penedo FJ, Navas-Nacher EL, Tent Y, Dent Y, Isasi CR, Schneiderman N, & Brondolo E (2015). Prevalence and correlates of perceived ethnic discrimination in the Hispanic Community Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(3), 160–176. 10.1037/lat0000040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayala GX, Ornelas I, Rhodes SD, Arnell JW, Dodds JM, Mebane E, Horton E, Montano J, Armstrong-Brown J, & Eng E (2009). Correlates of dietary intake among men involved in the MAN for Health study. American Journal of Men’s Health, 3(3), 201–213. 10.1177/1557988308317138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentler PM (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berry JW (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brittien AS, Kim SY, Armenta BE, Lee RM, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Schwartz SJ, Villalta IK, Zamboanga BL, Weisskirch RS, Juang LP, Castillo LG, & Hudson ML Do dimensions of ethnic identity mediate the association between perceived ethnic group discrimination and depressive symptoms? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 41–53. 10.1037/a0037531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brondolo E, Kelly KP, Coakley V, Gordon T, Thompson S, Levy E, Cassells A, Tobin JN, Sweeney M, & Contrada RJ (2005). The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation of a community version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 335–365. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02124.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Campbell ANC, Turrigiano E, Moore M, Miele GM, Rieckmann T, Hu M-C, Kropp F, Ringor-Carty R, & Nunes EV (2015). Acceptability of a web-based community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders with treatment-seeking American Indians/Alaska Natives. Community Mental Health Journal, 51, 393–403. DOI: 10.1007/s10597-014-9764-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Campos B, Roesch SC, Gonzalez P, Hooker ED, Castaneda SF, Giachello AL, Perreira KM, & Gallo LC (2019). Measurement properties of Sabogal’s Familism Scale: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 7(4), 257–272. 10.1037/lat0000126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Castillo LG, Perez FV, Castillo R, & Ghosheh MR (2010). Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 163–175. 10.1080/09515071003776036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Castillo LG, González P, Merz EL, Nuñez A, Castañeda SF, Buelna C, Ojeda L, Giachello AL, Womack VY, Garcia KA, Penedo FJ, Talavera GA, & Gallo LC (2021). Factorial invariance of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale among Latinos in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 312–328. 10.1002/jclp.23031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen FF (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheung GW, & Rensvold RB (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Corral I, & Landrine H (2010). Methodological and statistical issues in research with diverse samples: The problem of measurement equivalence. In Landrine H & Russo NF (Eds.), Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 83–134). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  15. Crawford JN, Leiting KA, Yeater EA, Verney SP, & Lenberg KL (2017). Ethnicity and sexual attitudes affect women’s judgments of sexual victimization risk. Violence Against Women, 23(2), 163–177. 10.1177/2F1077801216640382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Donovan RA, Huynh Q-L, Park IJ, Kim SY, Lee RM, & Robertson E (2013). Relationships among identity, perceived discrimination, and depressive symptoms in eight ethnic-generational groups. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 397–414. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.21936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox RS, Merz EL, Solórzano MT, & Roesch SC (2013). Further examining Berry’s model: The applicability of latent profile analysis to acculturation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(4), 270–288. doi: 10.1177/0748175613497036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallo LC, Penedo FJ, Carnethon M, Isasi C, Sotres-Alvarez D, Malcarne VL, Roesch SC, Youngblood ME, Daviglue ML, Gonzalez P, & Talavera GP (2014). The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study: Sample, design, and procedures. Ethnicity & Disease, 24(1), 77–83. PMCID: PMC2986116 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffith JD, Joe GW, Chatham LR, & Simpson DW (1998). The development and validation of a simpatía scale for Hispanics entering drug treatment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20(4), 468–482. 10.1177/2F07399863980204004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Guo X, Suarez-Morales L, Schwartz SJ, & Szapocznik J (2012). Some evidence for multidimensional biculturalism: Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance analysis on the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire–Short Version. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1, 52–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes AF, & Coutts JJ (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability, but . . . Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Huynh Q-L, Devos T, & Goldberg R (2014). The role of ethnic and national identifications in perceived discrimination for Asian Americans: Toward a better understanding of the buffering effect of group identifications on psychological distress. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 161–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. LaVange LM, Kalsbeek WD, Sorlie PD, Avilés-Santa LM, Kaplan RC, Barnhart J, Liu K, Giachello A, Lee DJ, Ryan J, Criqui MH, & Elder JP (2010). Sample design and cohort selection in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(8), 642–649. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Malcarne VL, Chavira DA, Fernandez S, & Liu P (2006). The Scale of Ethnic Experience: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 150–161. 10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Marín G, Sabogal F, VanOss, Marín B, Otero-Sabogal F, Pérez-Stable EJ (1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 183–205. [Google Scholar]
  27. McLaughlin EA, Campos-Melady M, Smith JE, Serier KN, Belon KE, Simmons JD, & Kelton K (2017). The role of familism in weight loss treatment for Mexican American women. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(12), 1510–1523. 10.1177/1359105316630134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Merz EL, Roesch SC, Malcarne VL, Penedo FJ, Talavera GA, Castaneda SF, Daviglus ML, Giachello AL, Gonzalez F, Perreira KM, Ponguta LA, & Gallo LC (2016). Social support, simpatía, and hypertension prevalence in Hispanics/Latinos: Findings from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(3), 131–141. 10.1037/lat0000047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Muthén LK & Muthén BO (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide, 8th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: [Google Scholar]
  30. Nuñez A, González P, Talavera GA, Sanchez-Johnsen L, Roesch SC, Davis SM, Arguelles W, Womack VY, Ostrovsky NW, Ojeda L, Penedo FJ, & Gallo LC (2016). Machismo, marianismo, and negative cognitive-emotional factors: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(4), 202–217. doi: 10.1037/lat0000050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Perreira KM, Gotman N, Isasi CR, Arguelles W, Castañeda SF, Daviglu ML, Giachello AL, Gonzalez P, Penedo FJ, Salgao H, & Wassertheil-Smoller S (2015). Mental health and exposure to the United States: Key correlates from the Hispanic Community Health Study of Latinos. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 203(9), 670–678. 10.1007/s10903-018-0724-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Roberts R, Phinney J, Masse L, Chen Y, Roberts C, & Romero A (1999). The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 301–322. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sabogal F, Marín G, Otero-Sabogal R, Marín BV, & Perez-Stable EJ (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397–412. 10.1177/07399863870094003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Satorra A, & Bentler PM (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. 10.2139/ssrn.199064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schweizer K (2011). Some thoughts concerning the recent shift from measures with many items to measures with few items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 71–72. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, & Anderson KG (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102–111. doi: 10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sorlie PD, Avilés-Santa LM, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kaplan RC, Daviglus ML, Giachello AL, Schneiderman N, Raij L, Talavera G, Allison M, LaVange L, Chambless LE, & Heiss G (2010). Design and implementation of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(8), 629–641. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.03.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sotomayor-Peterson M, De Baca TC, Figueredo AJ, & Smith-Castro V (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 620–639. 10.1177/2F0022022112455456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sotomayor-Peterson M, Figueredo AJ, Christensen DH, & Taylor AR (2012). Couples’ cultural values, shared parenting, and family emotional climate within Mexican American families. Family Process, 51(2), 218–233. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01396.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Thomas KS, Nelesen RA, Malcarne VL, Ziegler MG, & Dimsdale JE (2006). Ethnicity, perceived discrimination, and vascular reactivity to phenylephrine. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(5), 692–697. 10.1097/01.psy.0000238214.80871.e6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tucker RP, Wingate LR, & O’Keefe VM Historical loss thinking and symptoms of depression are influenced by ethnic experience in American Indian college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 350–358. 10.1037/cdp0000055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Vandenberg RJ, & Lance CE (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69. 10.1177/2F109442810031002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1834022-supplement-Supplemental_Material.pdf (319.8KB, pdf)

RESOURCES