Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Ethnic-Racial Identity (ERI) development research has been critical in further understanding youths’ psychological adjustment. The Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS) has been used extensively in this field of research to measure ERI. However, it has not been assessed for full measurement invariance, which is essential to ensure its effectiveness in measuring ERI differences across different ethnic-racial and gender groups. Thus, the current study sought to establish full factorial measurement invariance of the EIS between emerging adult college students across ethnic-racial groups (i.e., Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and non-Hispanic White/European American) and genders (i.e., male and female). Participants included 7165 students (M_age = 19.71 years, SD = 1.50) from 31 colleges and universities across various U.S. regions. Results established full factorial measurement invariance for the EIS across groups. Additionally, we examined construct validity by establishing that associations between ERI and psychological adjustment were consistent across groups. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

ethnic-racial identity ethnic identity measurement invariance ethnic identity scale emerging adults

Introduction

Ethnic-racial identity (ERI) reflects the significance and understanding of one’s ethnic-racial group membership and the processes in which one develops that significance and understanding. Individuals may start to experience ERI development in adolescence, however, ERI can be especially salient and pivotal to development during emerging adulthood (Syed & Mitchell, 2013). Given that a positively developed ERI has been linked to better overall well-being and academic achievement, ERI has been studied extensively in emerging adults (for a review, see Meca et al., 2023). Although conceptualizations and operationalizations of ERI have varied, the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004) is among one of the most widely utilized multidimensional measures of ERI. However, research has yet to fully determine whether the EIS functions equivalently across ethnic/racial and gender groups, a necessary precursor to conducting group comparisons. This is particularly problematic given differences in how ethnic/racial minorities are perceived within the U.S., which often intersects with gender (Yip, 2018). Moreover, the lack of invariance inhibits our capacity to examine how distinct historical events, that may differentially impact one group over another, impact ERI. To address these gaps, the current study aimed to establish full measurement invariance across the largest pan ethnic-racial groups and gender.

Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Ethnic-Racial Identity

Building on Phinney’s (1989) ethnic identity model, Umaña-Taylor et al. (2004) developed the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS) and proposed a multidimensional model of ERI that separately captures process (i.e., the ways in which identity is formed) and content (i.e., meaning or significance ascribed to identity) dimensions. The three key dimensions include exploration (i.e., process by which individuals gather information to learn about their ethnic-racial background), resolution (i.e., a clarity in what one’s ethnic-racial group membership means to them), and affirmation (i.e., positive attitudes towards one's ethnic-racial group). Although the EIS has been used extensively in ERI research and has received support across studies for a strong three-factor structure and good internal consistency of items (e.g., Douglass & Umaña-Taylor, 2017; Yoon, 2011), based on our review of the literature to date, only one study has examined measurement invariance across ethnic-racial groups for the EIS (i.e., Umaña-Taylor & Shin, 2007). Specifically, Umaña-Taylor and Shin (2007) examined measurement invariance across ethnic-racial groups among European American, Asian American, Latino, and African American college attending adults from two universities in the Midwest and California. Although Umaña-Taylor & Shin (2007) found evidence supporting configural (i.e., same structure) and metric (i.e., equal loadings) invariance, they did not explore scalar (i.e., equal thresholds) invariance, which represents an important step in the establishment of measurement invariance (Brown, 2015). Despite the fact that scalar invariance is a necessary precursor to conducting mean group comparisons, prior research has documented mean differences across these groups. For instance, Yoon (2011) examined ethnic identity statuses utilizing the EIS among a sample of college students and found that ethnic-racial minorities were more likely to be represented in statuses characterized by higher mean levels of ERI exploration and resolution than White individuals. However, without the establishment of scalar invariance, these mean-level comparisons cannot be statistically validated.

In a more recent study, Sladek and colleagues (2020) examined measurement invariance for the Ethnic Identity Scale-Brief (EIS-B; Douglas & Umaña-Taylor, 2015) across ethnic-racial and geographic region groups among a Midwest and a Southwest sample of Asian American, Black American, Latinx American, and White American adolescents. Although Sladek and colleagues (2020) were able to establish partial scalar invariance, it is important to note that the EIS-B is a distinct measure from the EIS. Further, adolescents and emerging adults have important developmental differences in terms of ERI (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). As such, it is important that these findings are confirmed with the EIS, which is more commonly utilized in research, in a diverse emerging adult sample. Moreover, in our review, despite studies documenting significant gender differences such as Mexican American female youth reporting significantly higher overall ERI than Mexican American male youth (Piña-Watson et al., 2013), no study to date has sought to determine measurement invariance across gender. Similar to comparing ethnic-racial mean group differences, this is problematic without the establishment of scalar measurement invariance, as these mean-level comparisons may not be statistically valid. In sum, by establishing measurement invariance, future researchers can confidently make valid covariance, variance, and mean comparisons for ERI development across diverse groups.

The Current Study

In the current study, we first aimed to confirm the existing three-factor structure of the EIS among college-attending emerging adults (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). The second aim of the study was to establish full factorial measurement invariance across ethnic-racial groups (i.e., Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and non-Hispanic White/European American) and genders (i.e., male and female). Finally, given limited studies have sought to examine differences in the association between ERI and psychological adjustment across these groups, we sought to determine whether these associations were consistent across ethnic-racial and gender groups. Further, given that ERI is influenced by systemic racism and oppression in the U.S. for ethnic-racial minorities which often intersects with gender (Yip, 2018), this may have important implications for differences in interpretation of the EIS as well as the relationship between ERI and psychological adjustment among these groups.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The present sample is a subset of participants from the Multi-Site University Study of Identity and Culture (see Castillo & Schwartz, 2013) and consisted of 7165 college-attending emerging adults (M_age = 19.71 years, SD = 1.50, 18–24 years old) from 31 colleges and universities across various regions of the U.S. Participants identified as Asian American (male: n = 354, 4.9%; female: n = 618, 8.6%), Black/African American (male: n = 128, 1.8%; female: n = 436, 6.1%), Hispanic/Latinx (male: n = 236, 3.3%; female: n = 687, 9.6%), and non-Hispanic White, European American (male: n = 1,233, 17.2%; female: n = 3,473, 48.5%). Data were collected from select universities in various regions of the U.S., from September 2008 through October 2009. Digital and print announcements were utilized to recruit students who were enrolled in social science, business, education, and human nutrition courses. Individuals who were interested in participating in the study were tasked with reading a consent form and confirming their participation via a website. The survey was comprised of six web pages that were able to be saved and resumed at a later date for the participant’s convenience. For their participation, students were entered into a raffle for a chance to win a prize drawing or given a research course credit. In total, 85% of participants completed the entirety of the survey.

Measures

Ethnic Identity Scale

The 17-item Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004) consists of three subscales: ERI exploration (7-items; α = .89, sample item: “I have participated in activities that have taught me about my ethnicity”), ERI resolution (4-items; α = .89, sample item: “I understand how I feel about my ethnicity”), and ERI affirmation (7-items; α = .84, sample item: “I dislike my ethnicity” [reverse coded]). Items were rated on 4-point categorical response scale, ranging from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 4 (describes me very well).

Psychological Adjustment

Psychological adjustment was assessed across a variety of indicators of positive adjustment (i.e., self-esteem & well-being) and internalizing (i.e., depressive symptoms and general anxiety) and externalizing (rule-breaking, social aggression, and physical aggression) symptoms. Self-esteem was assessed using the 10-item Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, which uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = .88, sample item: ‘‘I take a positive attitude toward myself’’). Psychological well-being was measured using the 18-item Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), which uses a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (α = .82, sample item: ‘‘I like most aspects of my personality’’). Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977), which uses a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (seldom) to 4 (most of the time) (α = .86, sample item: ‘‘I felt like crying this week’’). General anxiety symptoms during the previous week were assessed using an 18-item version of the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck et al., 1988) adapted for use with nonclinical populations, which uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = .95, sample item: ‘‘I have been worrying a lot this week’’). Finally, externalizing symptoms were assessed using the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (Burt & Donnellan, 2009), a 32-item instrument that assesses three subtypes of antisocial behavior, which uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Participants were asked to rate their engagement in rule breaking (11 items, α = .88; sample item: ‘‘Stole things from a store’’), social aggression (11 items, α = .82; sample item: ‘‘Intentionally damaged someone’s reputation’’), and physical aggression (10 items, α = .85; sample item: ‘‘Got into physical fights’’).

Analytic Plan

The analyses were conducted in Mplus v8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Model fit was assessed by examining the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Model fit was assessed according to Brown’s (2015) suggested values including good fit as CFI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .06; and adequate fit as CFI = .90 −.95, RMSEA = .06 - .08, and SRMR = .06 - .08. Preliminary analyses were completed in SPSS 29 to ensure data did not violate any statistical assumptions. Given that nearly half of the items had skewness/kurtosis values above acceptable cut-offs (e.g., ± 2), and items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, items were treated as categorical, and we utilized a weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator. Missingness on measures ranged from .5% to 8% and was handled utilizing pairwise present, the default in Mplus with a WLSMV estimator, in which cases with missing data on one or more of the exogenous variables is dropped.

The analytic approach occurred in three steps. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the previously established three-factor structure utilizing the full sample. Second, we used a multigroup CFA model to establish configural (i.e., same structure), metric (i.e., equal loadings), and scalar (i.e., equal thresholds) measurement invariance across ethnic-racial and gender groups (e.g., Hispanic/Latinx Male, Hispanic/Latinx Female, Black Male, etc.). Consistent with recommendations by Chen (2007), changes of ≥ −.010 in CFI, in addition to a change of ≥ .015 in RMSEA or a change of ≥ .030 in SRMR for factor loadings, and ≥ −.010 in CFI, supplemented by a change of ≥ .015 in RMSEA or a change of ≥ .010 in SRMR for thresholds, would imply noninvariance. Although some researchers may argue that stepwise approaches to measurement invariance are outdated, recent studies have provided evidence that traditional stepwise approaches produce similar results and even benefits over using newer alternative measurement invariance approaches such as alignment (Luong & Flake, 2023). Lastly, in line with recommendations to examine construct validity equivalence (Knight et al., 2009), we sought to establish the association between dimensions of ERI with psychological adjustment and determine whether these associations were consistent across groups utilizing a multigroup structural equation model.

Results

Step 1 – Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Upon conducting a CFA for the entire pooled sample (i.e., all ethnic-racial and gender groups), the three-factor EIS model provided adequate to good fit [CFI = .979, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .067]. With the exception of item 2 (“I have not participated in any activities that would teach me about my ethnicity”; [reverse coded]), whose factor loading was just barely above the typical cutoff value (λ = .414), standardized factor loadings for the remaining items were greater than .60 (see Table 1S in Supplemental Material).

Step 2 – Establishing Measurement Invariance

Building on the championed model across all eight groups (e.g., Hispanic/Latinx Male, Hispanic/Latinx Female, Black Male, etc.), the three-factor EIS model was tested for configural invariance and provided adequate to good fit [CFI = .974, RMSEA = .080, SRMR = .072]. Next, metric invariance was tested, and the model also provided adequate to good fit [CFI = .976, RMSEA = .072, SRMR = .077], and provided support for metric invariance [i.e., metric model was not significantly different from configural model; ΔCFI = −.002, ΔRMSEA = .008, ΔSRMR = .005]. After establishing metric invariance, scalar invariance was examined. The model provided adequate to good fit [CFI = .972, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .077], and provided support for scalar invariance [i.e., scalar model was not significantly different from metric model; ΔCFI = .003, ΔRMSEA = .004, ΔSRMR = .000]. Overall, findings indicated that the EIS factor structure, factor loadings, and item intercepts did not vary across ethnic-racial and gender groups.

Step 3 – Associations with Psychological Adjustment

Finally, we sought to determine the unique associations between dimensions of ERI with psychological adjustment, controlling for age, and determine whether these associations varied across ethnic-racial and gender groups. The unconstrained model was associated with adequate-to-good fit [CFI = .969, RMSEA = .049, SRMR = .068]. Subsequently, we sought to constrain the associations to be equal across ethnic-racial and gender groups. The constrained model was not only associated with adequate-to-good model fit [CFI = .976, RMSEA = .042, SRMR = .071], but there was no significant difference between the two models [ΔCFI = −.007, ΔRMSEA = .007, ΔSRMR = −.003], indicating full invariance in the associations between dimensions of ERI with indicators of psychological adjustment. As indicated in Table 1, ERI affirmation was positively associated with positive indicators of psychosocial functioning including self-esteem and psychological well-being. Moreover, ERI affirmation was negatively associated with every indicator of negative psychosocial functioning. Similarly, although to a lesser extent, ERI resolution was positively associated with self-esteem and psychological well-being and negatively associated with symptoms of generalized anxiety, depression, and rule-breaking. In contrast, ERI exploration was negatively associated with self-esteem and psychological well-being, and positively associated with symptoms of generalized anxiety, depression, and rule-breaking.

Table 1.

Standardized Direct Effects of Ethnic Identity on Psychological Adjustment.

Outcome	Predictor	Estimate	S.E.	Two-Tailed p-value	95% CI
Self-Esteem	Affirmation	.345	.020	<.001	.306 to .383
	Resolution	.287	.026	<.001	.236 to .339
	Exploration	−.082	.022	<.001	−.126 to −.038
Psychological Well-Being	Affirmation	.475	.022	<.001	.431 to .519
	Resolution	.333	.025	<.001	.284 to .382
	Exploration	−.078	.021	<.001	−.119 to −.037
General Anxiety	Affirmation	−.328	.020	<.001	−.366 to −.290
	Resolution	−.186	.027	<.001	−.240 to −.133
	Exploration	.078	.024	.001	.032 to .125
Depressive Symptoms	Affirmation	−.313	.019	<.001	−.350 to −.275
	Resolution	−.131	.027	<.001	−.183 to −.078
	Exploration	.049	.024	.038	.003 to .095
Rule Breaking	Affirmation	−.322	.017	<.001	−.355 to −.289
	Resolution	−.118	.021	<.001	−.160 to −.076
	Exploration	.049	.018	.007	.013 to .030
Social Aggression	Affirmation	−.292	.019	<.001	−.330 to −.254
	Resolution	−.016	.027	.557	−.068 to .037
	Exploration	−.016	.023	.488	−.062 to .030
Physical Aggression	Affirmation	−.333	.019	<.001	−.369 to −.297
	Resolution	−.034	.024	.155	−.081 to .013
	Exploration	−.001	.021	.964	−.042 to .040

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to confirm the existing three-factor structure of the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS), establish measurement invariance across ethnic-racial groups and genders, and establish the association between dimensions of ERI with psychological adjustment and determine whether these associations were consistent across ethnic-racial groups (i.e., Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and non-Hispanic White/European American) and genders (i.e., male and female). The present study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance of the EIS across Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and non-Hispanic White/European American male and female college students.

Consistent with previous studies, the original 3-factor structure of ethnic identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation was supported (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). In addition, full factorial measurement invariance for the three-factor structure EIS was established. These findings are somewhat consistent with previous studies that have established metric invariance for the EIS (Umaña-Taylor & Shin, 2007) and partial scalar invariance for the EIS-B (Sladek et al., 2020). The establishment of full scalar versus partial may be due to the fact that the EIS is a more established measure than the EIS-B, and may be more interpretable among emerging adults. Conceptually, the establishment of measurement invariance provides evidence that the EIS is interpreted similarly across Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and non-Hispanic White/European American male and female emerging adult college students. Statistically, the establishment of scalar invariance means that researchers can adequately compare observed and latent differences for means, covariances, and variances on the EIS across ethnic-racial and gender groups (Brown, 2015).

Finally, measurement invariance for the associations between dimensions of ERI with indicators of psychological adjustment was established across ethnic-racial and gender groups. These findings provide evidence that not only do diverse groups of college students experience comparable interpretation of the EIS, but also that associations between specific dimensions of ERI, as measured by the EIS, and psychological adjustment are similar. Moreover, ERI affirmation and resolution were both positively associated with indicators of well-being and negatively associated with unfavorable indicators of adjustment. These findings are consistent with previous research which indicates that higher levels of ERI are associated with better overall well-being across ethnic-racial groups (Umaña-Taylor & Shin, 2007; Yoon, 2011). In contrast, ERI exploration was overall associated with poorer psychological adjustment. In the broader identity literature, research indicates that prolonged exploration, coupled with a lack of commitments, can lead to poorer overall well-being in youth (Meca et al., 2022). To this end, the negative associations found in the current study between ERI exploration and psychological adjustment may indicate individuals are experiencing a lost sense of cultural self, or a cultural moratorium.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations should be noted from the current study. First, data collection took place from 2008-2009, in which a variety of sociopolitical shifts have occurred since (e.g., presidential elections, social justice movements), and emerging adults’ ERI development may have also shifted. Thus, future research is necessary to examine if the findings of the current study hold with more recent data. Second, although we examined college students from several ethnic-racial groups in the current study, there are still additional relevant ethnic-racial groups that were not included in the analyses due to sample size restrictions, such that when making group comparisons, each group should have at least 200 participants (Brown, 2015). Given that prior research has examined ERI among a variety of ethnic-racial groups, future research should examine measurement invariance more comprehensively across groups. Similarly, we only examined individuals who identified as male or female in the current study due to sample size restrictions, future research should seek to extend these findings among other gender identities. Additionally, the current study may not generalize for non-college attending emerging adults. Future research should assess whether the EIS measures ERI similarly among different populations of emerging adults, such as individuals who are working or in the military. Finally, the EIS has been used in assessment of other age groups, prompting the need for future research to examine if the scale is invariant across different developmental stages.

Conclusion

The current study extends the existing literature on ethnic-racial identity (ERI) by establishing full factorial measurement invariance for the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS) across ethnic-racial groups and genders. The findings from this study provide further evidence that the interpretation of the EIS is similar across ethnic-racial and gender groups. Moreover, by establishing measurement invariance between dimensions of ERI and psychological adjustment, we have demonstrated how ERI dimensions, and their associations with psychological adjustment function similarly across emerging adult populations. By providing evidence of full measurement invariance, we hope to contribute to the literature on ERI by showing that the EIS may be applied equally across diverse groups, further strengthening our understanding of ERI measurement.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - A Brief Report on Measurement Invariance for the Ethnic Identity Scale Among College-Attending Emerging Adults

Supplemental Material for A Brief Report on Measurement Invariance for the Ethnic Identity Scale Among College-Attending Emerging Adults by Kelsie K. Allison, Alan Meca, Bethany Cruz, Allison Wright, and Taryn Veniegas in Emerging Adulthood

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - A Brief Report on Measurement Invariance for the Ethnic Identity Scale Among College-Attending Emerging Adults

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Access Statement

This form is based on a template provided by the Open Science Framework,

Transparency and Openness Statement

The raw data, analysis code, and materials used in this study are not openly available but are available upon request to the corresponding author. The data collection and analysis were not pre-registered.

ORCID iDs

Kelsie K. Allison

Alan Meca

Allison Wright

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Kelsie K. Allison is a doctoral candidate in the Health Psychology PhD program at Old Dominion University. Her research interests include promoting positive identity development for marginalized youth and emerging adults.

Alan Meca is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. His research program focuses on identity development, particularly personal and cultural identity, and the impact identity development has on psychosocial functioning and health disparities.

Bethany Cruz is a Master’s Student in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests focus on understanding how discrimination and cultural family values can impact identity development and psychosocial functioning in sexual and ethnic minoritized populations.

Allison Wright is a Research Assistant in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center. Her research involvement focuses on the neuropsychological impact of mTBI in combat veterans conducted through the Polytrauma & Rehabilitation Center located at the Audie Murphy VA hospital. She graduated with her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Texas at San Antonio in May of 2023.

Taryn Veniegas is a Master’s Student in the experimental psychology M.S. program at UTSA. Her interests include various aspects of social inequities such as status-based identity and socioeconomic status’ effect on psychosocial functioning, as well as minority alienation and discrimination.

References

Beck

A. T.

Epstein

Brown

Steer

(1988). Beck anxiety inventory. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02025-000

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford publications.

Burt

S. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2009). Development and validation of the subtypes of antisocial behavior Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(5), 376–398.

Castillo

L. G.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2013). Introduction to the special issue on college student mental health. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21972

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Douglass

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2015). A brief form of the Ethnic Identity Scale: Development and empirical validation. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 15, 48–65. http://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2014.989442

Douglass

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2017). Examining discrimination, ethnic-racial identity status, and youth public regard among Black, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12262

Knight

G. P.

Roosa

M. W.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2009). Measurement and measurement equivalence issues. In Studying ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged populations: Methodological challenges and best practices (pp. 97–131). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11887-000

Luong

Flake

J. K.

(2023). Measurement invariance testing using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization: A tutorial for transparent analysis planning and reporting. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000441

10.

Meca

Allison

Cruz

Ayers

K. L.

Webb

Patel

(2022). Who am I? Identity and its implications for health and psychosocial functioning. In Encyclopedia of Child and adolescent health. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818872-9.00111-4

11.

Meca

Allison

K. K.

Cruz

Wright

Gonzales-Backen

Scury

(2023). Cultural identity development among ethnic-racial minorities: An examination of ethnic- racial identity, national identity, and biculturalism. In Berryman

(Eds), Encyclopedia of Child and adolescent health. Elsevier.

12.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (Eighth Edition). Muthén & Muthén.

13.

Phinney

J. S.

(1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1-2), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431689091004

14.

Piña-Watson

Ojeda

Castellon

N. E.

Dornhecker

(2013). Familismo, ethnic identity, and bicultural stress as predictors of Mexican American adolescents’ positive psychological functioning. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1(4), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000006

15.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

16.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

17.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719

18.

Sladek

M. R.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

McDermott

E. R.

Rivas-Drake

Martinez-Fuentes

(2020). Testing invariance of ethnic-racial discrimination and identity measures for adolescents across ethnic-racial groups and contexts. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000805

19.

Syed

Mitchell

L. L.

(2013). Race, ethnicity, and emerging adulthood: Retrospect and prospects. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813480503

20.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Shin

(2007). An examination of ethnic identity and self-esteem with diverse populations: Exploring variation by ethnicity and geography. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.2.178

21.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Yazedjian

Bámaca-Gómez

(2004). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4(1), 938. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2

22.

Yip

(2018). Ethnic/racial identity—a double-edged sword? Associations with discrimination and psychological outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417739348

23.

Yoon

(2011). Measuring ethnic identity in the ethnic identity scale and the multigroup ethnic identity measure-Revised. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023361

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.12 MB