Educational and Psychological Measurement 2008

http://epm.sagepub.com/
Measurement
Educational and Psychological
http://epm.sagepub.com/content/68/6/1041
The online version of this article can be found at:
 
DOI: 10.1177/0013164408318771
23 May 2008
2008 68: 1041 originally published online Educational and Psychological Measurement
Frank C. Worrell and Stevie Watson
Scores: Testing the Expanded Nigrescence Model
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS)
 
 
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
at:
can be found Educational and Psychological Measurement Additional services and information for
 
 
 
 
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
 
http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
 
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
 
http://epm.sagepub.com/content/68/6/1041.refs.html Citations:
 
What is This?
 
- May 23, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record
 
- Nov 17, 2008 Version of Record >>
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
of Cross Racial Identity
Scale (CRIS) Scores
Testing the Expanded Nigrescence Model
Frank C. Worrell
University of California, Berkeley
Stevie Watson
Rutgers University
In this study, the authors tested the viability of the expanded nigrescence (NT-E) model
as operationalized by Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) scores using confirmatory fac-
tor analyses. Participants were 594 Black college students from the Southeastern United
States. Results indicated a good fit for NT-E’s proposed six-factor structure. One-factor
and two-factor higher-order models also yielded good fit indices, although several coeffi-
cients in the one-factor higher-order model were not salient or statistically significant. In
sum, the results provide strong support for the CRIS as an operationalization of NT-E.
The authors suggest that CRIS scores can be used in studies concerned with drawing
inferences about the effects of racial identity attitudes.
Keywords: CRIS; expanded nigrescence model; racial identity; validity
F
rom the seminal doll studies in the first half of the last century (Clark & Clark,
1947, 1950) to contemporary explanations of African American underachieve-
ment (e.g., Ogbu, 2004; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, Fryberg, Brosh, & Hart-Johnson,
2003; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995), racial identity attitudes have been
implicated in the psychological well-being and educational attainment of African
Americans. Indeed, in the past two decades, there have been numerous articles and a
substantial number of doctoral dissertations on the relationship between racial iden-
tity attitudes and psychological well-being in African American populations. Given
its prominence in the research literature (Cokley, Caldwell, Miller, & Muhammad,
2001), it is clear that the construct of racial identity must be considered in any psy-
chological study of African Americans.
Educational and
Psychological Measurement
Volume 68 Number 6
December 2008 1041-1058
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0013164408318771
http://epm.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Frank C. Worrell, Cognition and Development, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley, 4511 Tolman Hall, #1670, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670; e-mail:
[email protected].
1041
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
There are several Black racial identity theories in the literature. Helms (1990)
identified 11 of these and classified them into two groups, one emphasizing the cli-
ent as problem and the other emphasizing development. Around the same time per-
iod, Burlew and Smith (1991), ‘‘using a [very] broad definition of racial identity’’
(p. 54), grouped 17 racial identity measures into four categories: developmental
(4), Africentric (3), group based (6), and racial stereotyping (4). However, based on
conceptualizations of construct validity as an overarching concept subsuming mul-
tiple types of evidence (see Benson, 1998), the evidence for scores on all of the
measures listed by Burlew and Smith (1991) is weak.
Unfortunately, the psychometric evidence for scores on two of the most fre-
quently used Black racial identity measures in the research literature is also weak.
Scores on all of the versions of the Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale (Helms &
Parham, 1990, 1996; Parham & Helms, 1981) have been criticized for low internal
consistency estimates and inconsistent structural validity (Burlew & Smith, 1991;
Fischer, Tokar, & Serna, 1998; Lemon & Waehler, 1996; Tokar & Fischer, 1998;
Yanico, Swanson, & Tokar, 1994), and Cokley (2007) argued that it was difficult
to justify using the scale. Researchers have also reported equivocal evidence
for scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers,
Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, &
Chavous, 1998), as the structure does not conform to the theory on which the scale
is based (Cokley & Helm, 2001; Helm, 2002; Simmons, Worrell, & Berry, 2006).
Concerns about the instruments being used with racial and ethnic minorities
have been articulated for several years (e.g., Fischer & Moradi, 2001; Sabnani &
Ponterotto, 1992; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990). As Fisher, Jackson, and
Villarruel (1998) observed, ‘‘to date, the lack of consistency in definitions and mea-
surement of ethnic and cultural identity has limited the extent to which current
research findings expand our understanding of the dynamic interaction between
development and context’’ (p. 1159). Despite the lack of validity information,
many racial identity instruments are used in studies where inferences and conclu-
sions are dependent on scores that have not been appropriately validated.
One of the more recent instruments is the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS;
Vandiver et al., 2000; Worrell, Vandiver, & Cross, 2004), which operationalizes
the expanded nigrescence model (NT-E; Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Worrell, Cross,
& Vandiver, 2001). The authors of the CRIS (Vandiver et al., 2000) attempted to
avoid many of the criticisms about the reliability and validity of scores that plague
other instruments with a lengthy scale development process and a systematic series
of validation studies. In this article, we describe NT-E, review the development of
the CRIS, and summarize the current psychometric evidence for CRIS scores.
Then, we use confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypothesis that the structure
of the CRIS represents NT-E. The goal of the study is to provide empirical support
for the use of CRIS scores in inferential studies.
1042 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
The Expanded Nigrescence Model
NT-E was introduced into the research literature 6 years ago (Cross & Vandiver,
2001; Worrell et al., 2001) as an update on the original (NT-O; Cross, 1971) and
revised (NT-R; Cross, 1991) nigrescence models. In keeping with contemporary
theorizing about collective identities (e.g., Ashmore, Deaux, & McLauglin-Volpe,
2004), NT-E is a multidimensional conceptualization of Black racial identity atti-
tudes. Whereas NT-O and NT-R were articulated as developmental stage theories,
in NT-E, Black racial identity is conceptualized as a series of attitudes related to
three specific themes, Pre-Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization.
‘‘Pre-Encounter themes refer to those identities that accord low or even negative
salience to race and Black culture . . . [and] include Assimilation, which reflects low
race salience, as well as Miseducation and Self-Hatred, both forms of negative race
salience’’ (Worrell, Vandiver, Schaefer, Cross, & Fhagen-Smith, 2006, p. 521). Indi-
viduals with predominantly Assimilation attitudes are likely to downplay the impor-
tance of race in the United States, and those with Miseducated attitudes believe the
negative stereotypes about African Americans, sometimes to the point of self-loathing
(Self-Hatred attitudes).
The Immersion-Emersion attitudes, Anti-White and Intense Black Involvement,
represent intense pro-Black and anti-White fixations, respectively (Worrell, Vandiver,
et al., 2006). Immersion-Emersion themes become salient when African Americans
who previously downplayed the importance of race are confronted with the reality
of racism in America (e.g., through a personal experience with discrimination).
Intense Black Involvement represents a desire to bond or join in the collective African
American identity, and Anti-White attitudes reflect a deep-seated anger at (a) White
America for the unfairness of American society and (b) the self for not heretofore
recognizing the effects of belonging to a stigmatized group. Individuals in whom
these Immersion-Emersion attitudes are predominant have the potential to be intoler-
ant of both individuals with primarily Pre-Encounter attitudes and those with multi-
cultural attitudes (Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith, Cokley, Cross, & Worrell, 2001), as they
are likely to romanticize all things Black and demonize all things White.
The ‘‘Afrocentric, Bicultural, and Multicultural identities are under the Interna-
lization thematic heading and are symbolic of the types of identity attitudes where
one’s positive feelings about being Black do not preclude acknowledging other
salient identities in self or others’’ (Worrell, Vandiver, et al., 2006, p. 522). All the
Internalization attitudes reflect an acceptance of being Black. Afrocentric attitudes
highlight the importance of using Afrocentric values as a foundation for living.
Bicultural attitudes combine pro-Black attitudes with one other salient identity
(e.g., racial identity and religion, racial identity and gender, racial identity and sex-
ual orientation). Multicultural Racial attitudes reflect pro-Black attitudes combined
with positive attitudes toward individuals from other marginalized groups (e.g.,
Latinos, American Indians). Finally, Multiculturalist Inclusive attitudes combine
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1043
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
pro-Black feelings with positive attitudes toward all other cultural groups, includ-
ing members of the majority culture. Cross and Vandiver (2001) indicated that the
specific attitudes described in NT-E represent only a subset of the possible universe
of Black racial identity attitudes that exist in the population.
The Cross Racial Identity Scale
Scale development and internal consistency. The CRIS (Vandiver et al., 2000,
Worrell, Vandiver, & Cross, 2004) was developed to operationalize NT-E. The CRIS
consists of six subscales of five items each (for a total of 30 items), including three
Pre-Encounter attitudes (Assimilation, Miseducation, Self-Hatred), one Immersion-
Emersion attitude (Anti-White), and two Internalization attitudes (Afrocentricity and
Multiculturalist Inclusive). Three of the attitudes that are highlighted in NT-E (see
Worrell et al., 2001) are not included on the CRIS. Vandiver, Cross, Worrell, and
Fhagen-Smith (2002) indicated that it is not feasible to measure the large number of
possible biculturalist attitudes. They also reported that subscales assessing Intense
Black Involvement and Multicultural Racial attitudes are under development. The
fact that these scales are not yet available harkens back to a question raised in one of
the scale development studies: can ‘‘Intense Black Involvement and Multiculturalist
Racial [attitudes] be measured directly, or will indirect methods be needed?’’
(Worrell et al., 2001, p. 207).
The development of the CRIS, which is outlined in several articles (Cross &
Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2001, 2002; Worrell et al., 2001), took place over
a 5-year period and involved six phases:
The initial item development and content validation of the scale was conducted in
Phase 1. The goals of Phases 2 through 4 were to establish a minimum reliability esti-
mate of .70 for the subscale scores and establish construct [structural] validity through
exploratory factor analysis. In Phases 5 and 6, the goals of scale development were to
achieve a minimum reliability estimate of .80 for subscale scores and to replicate con-
struct [structural] validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
(Cross & Vandiver, 2001, p. 381)
As can be seen in Table 1, reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the five-
item CRIS subscale scores from 10 studies in the literature are in the .78 to .86
range, providing convincing evidence for the internal consistency of the items,
although two of the subscales have not reached the floor of .80 set by the authors
(see also Henson, 2001).
Structural validity. Structural validity evidence for the CRIS is also generally
supportive. Since the initial scale development studies (Vandiver et al., 2001, 2002),
there have been four studies examining the structural validity of CRIS scores, all
1044 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
using exploratory analyses (Helm, 2002; Gardner-Kitt & Worrell, 2007; Simmons
et al., 2006; Worrell, Vandiver, Cross, & Fhagen-Smith, 2004). In a 2002 dissertation
study, Helm analyzed the 30 CRIS items in a sample of 388 college students using
principal components analysis. She reported that all CRIS items loaded on their
assigned subscales and that there were no complex items (i.e., items loading on more
than one factor). Worrell, Vandiver, Cross, et al. (2004) used an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA; principal axis extraction, oblimin rotation with a delta of 0) and
reported similar results in a sample of African American adults (mean [M] age =34).
Simmons et al. (2006) and Gardner-Kitt and Worrell (2007) reported the same out-
comes for a sample of college students (M age =19) and school-aged adolescents
(M age =14), respectively. However, in the adolescent study, one Afrocentricity
item was complex, with a salient coefficient on its home factor and on the Anti-
White factor, although the coefficient on the home fact was higher.
To date, the only confirmatory factor analysis of CRIS scores was conducted as
part of the original scale development studies. Vandiver et al. (2002) compared the
six-factor model based on NT-E with several other models, including two-, three-,
four-, and five- first-order models, and both one- and two-factor higher-order mod-
els. The six-factor NT-E model achieved the best fit with a comparative fit index
(CFI) of .94, a chi square/degrees of freedom ratio of 1.55, and an root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) 90% confidence interval of .043 to .055. The two
Table 1
Coefficient Alpha Reliability Estimates for Cross
Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) Subscale Scores
Studies N PA PM PSH IEAW IA IMCI
Cokley (2002) 153 .74 .81 .80 .81 .83 .83
Helm (2002) 388 .78 .78 .89 .89 .83 .83
Vandiver et al. (2002) 309 .85 .78 .89 .89 .83 .82
White (2002)
a
271 .82 .75 .87 .89 .82 .85
Wright (2003)
b
181 .77 .77 .75 .81 .82 .74
Worrell, Vandiver, and Cross (2004) 105 .83 .77 .70 .83 .85 .77
Cokley (2005) 201 — — — .83 .84 .76
Simmons et al. (2006) 225 .80 .80 .82 .84 .82 .77
Gardner-Kitt and Worrell (2007)
c
143 .70 .83 .86 .87 .80 .83
Jones, Cross, and DeFour (2007)
b
310 .74 .84 .76 .87 .80 .81
Median .78 .78 .82 .86 .83 .82
Note: PA=Pre-Encounter Assimilation; PM=Pre-Encounter Miseducation; PSH=Pre-Encounter Self-
Hatred; IEAW=Immersion-Emersion Anti-White; IA=Internalization Afrocentricity; IMCI =Internaliza-
tion Multiculturalist Inclusive.
a. All male sample.
b. All female samples.
c. School-aged adolescents.
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1045
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
higher-order models achieved fit statistics that were almost as good as the six-factor
model, with the two-factor higher-order model edging out the single-factor higher-
order model on fit statistics and theoretical viability. In sum, structural validity evi-
dence to date provides strong evidence for CRIS scores.
Convergent validity. Both convergent and discriminant validity evidence exist
for CRIS scores. Vandiver et al. (2002) reported bivariate correlations between
CRIS subscales and MIBI (Sellers et al., 1997, 1998) subscales. Statistically signifi-
cant and meaningful (i.e., r ≥ :30) relationships were generally in keeping with
theoretical predictions. Assimilation scores on the CRIS had positive correlations
with Assimilation and Humanist scores on the MIBI and negative correlations with
the MIBI’s Centrality and Nationalist scores. Self-Hatred scores on the CRIS were
negatively related to Private Regard scores on the MIBI, which assess individuals’
private feelings about being Black. Anti-White and Afrocentricity scores on the
CRIS were positively related to Nationalist scores on the MIBI, and Anti-White
scores were also negatively related to Humanist scores. Finally, the CRIS’ Multi-
cultural Inclusive subscale scores were positively related to Oppressed Minority
and Humanist scores on the MIBI. Helm (2002) and Simmons et al. (2006) reported
a similar pattern of bivariate correlations between CRIS and MIBI scores, as did
Worrell, Vandiver, and Cross (2004) using canonical correlations.
Worrell and Gardner-Kitt (2006) examined the relationship between CRIS scores
and scores on the original Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM-O, Phinney,
1992) using bivariate and canonical correlations. The MEIM-O has two subscales
(Phinney, 1992; Worrell, 2000; Worrell, Conyers, Mpofu, & Vandiver, 2006), one
assessing ethnic identity (attitudes toward one’s own group) and the other group
orientation (attitudes toward groups other than one’s own). Bivariate correlations
yielded results in the expected directions: Ethnic Identity scores on the MEIM had a
positive correlation with Afrocentricity and a negative correlation with Assimilation,
and Other Group Orientation scores on the MEIM had a positive correlation with
Multiculturalist Inclusive scores and a negative correlation with Anti-White scores.
The canonical correlations resulted in more nuanced results in keeping with theory
and a multidimensional examination of cultural identity scores. Two statistically signif-
icant, meaningful (R
2
c
≥ 10%), and theoretically interpretable variates were identified.
The first variate, labeled Black Racial/Ethnic Identification, reflected an in-group focus
and was positively correlated with Anti-White (CRIS), Afrocentricity (CRIS), and
Ethnic Identity (MEIM) attitudes and negatively correlated with Assimilation (CRIS),
Self-Hatred (CRIS), Multiculturalist Inclusive (CRIS), and Other Group Orientation
(MEIM) attitudes. The second variate was labeled Grounded Multiculturalism and
represented positive attitudes toward both African Americans and other ethnic and
racial groups. This variate had positive relationships with Multiculturalist Inclusive
(CRIS), Ethnic Identity (MEIM), and Other Group Orientation (MEIM) attitudes and
negative relationships with Self-Hatred (CRIS) and Anti-White (CRIS) attitudes.
1046 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Finally, Vandiver et al. (2002) also reported a negative correlation (−.32) between
global self-esteem scores using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
and Self-Hatred scores on the CRIS. This finding is in keeping with Cross’s (1991)
contention that personal identity variables and reference group orientations (e.g.,
racial identity attitudes) are generally not related, unless the reference group orienta-
tion has specific personal identity implications, as in the case of Black self-hatred.
Discriminant validity. To establish discriminant validity, CRIS scores were com-
pared with social desirability, global self-esteem, and the Big Five personality traits
(Vandiver et al., 2002). CRIS scores were not related to social desirability, yielding
low correlations (−:11 ≤r ≤:23) with Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression
Management subscale scores of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(Paulhus, 1984, 1991). Additionally, with the exception of self-hatred as indicated
above, no CRIS scores were related to global self-esteem.
The Big Five was measured using the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, &
Kentle, 1991), an instrument with reliable and valid scores in that sample (Worrell &
Cross, 2004). Both unidimensional (bivariate correlations) and multidimensional
(canonical correlations) analyses were employed. No CRIS scores had meaningful
bivariate relationships with the Big Five—the largest correlation was .21 between
Multicultural Inclusive attitudes and Openness (Vandiver et al., 2002). The first and
only interpretable variate of the canonical correlation between CRIS scores and BFI
scores accounted for 15% of the variance in scores and had positive correlations with
Multicultural Inclusive attitudes, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness
and a negative relationship with Miseducation attitudes (i.e., accepting negative
stereotypes about Blacks).
The Present Study
The goal of the present study was to examine the structure of CRIS scores in a
large sample using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). The choice of analysis is
important for several reasons. First,
CFA requires a strong empirical or conceptual foundation to guide the specification
and evaluation of the factor model. Accordingly, CFA is typically used in later phases
of scale development or construct validation after the underlying structure has been
tentatively established by prior empirical analyses using EFA, as well as on theoreti-
cal grounds. (Brown, 2006, p. 41)
Second, the CRIS as an operationalization of NT-E is at a stage where theory
testing rather than theory generation is required (Byrne, 2006; Meyers, Gamst, &
Guarino, 2006). Third, there has been only one CFA of CRIS scores (Vandiver et al.,
2002), and this was conducted as part of the scale development process. Establishing
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1047
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
validity is an ongoing process (Benson, 1998), and one study should never be consid-
ered definitive. Indeed, although often ignored, ‘‘replication is the very hallmark of
[good] science’’ (Franzosi, 2004, p. 113; see also Benson & Nasser, 1998; Meehl,
1990).
Fourth, racial identity constructs are being used with increasing frequency as
‘‘explanatory theories’’ (Meehl, 1990, p. 196). Meehl also made the following perti-
nent observation: ‘‘If I am going to confirm or refute a theory about the relation of
social introversion to anxiety-based affiliative drives, I ought to have grounds for
thinking that the test is sufficiently valid for use in this way’’ (p. 216). With the
exception of the CRIS, there is weak or equivocal support for scores on the most fre-
quently used Black racial identity instruments in the research literature (Chappell,
1995; Cokley & Helm, 2001; Fischer et al., 1998; Lemon & Waehler, 1996; Myers
& Thompson, 1994; Ponterotto & Wise, 1987; Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992; Sellers
et al., 1997, 1998; Simmons et al., 2006; Stokes, Murray, Peacock, & Kaiser, 1994;
Tokar & Fischer, 1998; Yanico et al., 1994). To test the CRIS as an operationaliza-
tion of NT-E, we examined both the internal consistency of CRIS scores and their
structural validity using CFA procedures. It was hypothesized that CRIS scores
would have reliability estimates in the moderate to high range (i.e., between .70 and
.90) and that the six-factor structure proposed by NT-E would fit the data well.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 594 Black college students enrolled at three different
institutions in the southeastern United States. They ranged in age from 17 to 59 years
(M age =20.9, standard deviation [SD] =2.7; seven participants did not report their
age). Fifty-four percent of the sample was male and the majority described themselves
as African American (68.9%) or Black (13.5%), with smaller numbers endorsing
descriptors such as African (6.7%), Caribbean Black (5.4%), mixed (3.5%), or Hispa-
nic Black (0.8%). The majority of the participants (97.8%) reported that they were
U.S. citizens. Participants were primarily from suburban (44.6%) and urban (43.1%)
communities, with a smaller number coming from rural (6.2%) and other (5.2%) com-
munities. The majority of participants (90.7%) were attending historically Black col-
leges (HBCU), with the rest (n =55) attending a principally White institution (PWI).
The HBCU students were younger (M=20:7; SD=2.14) than the PWI students
(M=22:33; SD=5.6), t(55.62) =−2.13, p <:05, Cohen’s d =−:62, and were also
from wealthier families in general: only 24.6% of the HBCU participants described
their family socioeconomic status as poor or working class compared with 34.6% of
the PWI participants. However, the students from the two types of schools did not
have statistically significant differences on any of the CRIS subscale scores.
1048 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
About half of the participants (51.6%) reported that the communities they were
raised in were at least 70% Black, and 20.1% were raised in communities that were
less than 30% Black. The majority of the participants were undergraduates
(97.6%), with seniors (42.8%) and juniors (27.5%) being represented in greater
numbers than sophomores (15.5%) and freshmen (11.8%). The modal majors were
Business (49.2%) and Social Sciences (14.7%). About half of the participants indi-
cated that their family was middle class (49.2%), with working class (23.4%) and
upper middle class (22.4%) families making up most of the rest of the sample. Less
than 3% indicated that their families were either poor or wealthy.
Measure
All participants completed a packet of measures that included the CRIS (Vandiver
et al., 2000; Worrell, Vandiver, & Cross, 2004), which was the only instrument used
in this study. The CRIS is a 30-item measure designed to assess six racial identity
attitudes put forward in NT-E (Cross & Vandiver, 2001). These attitudes include
Assimilation, Miseducation, Self-Hatred, Anti-White, Afrocentricity, and Multicul-
turalist Inclusive, and a sample item from each subscale is included in Table 2. Each
subscale consists of five items distributed between Items 1 and 40 (there are 10 filler
items). Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert-type
scale with verbal anchors (1=strongly disagree, 4 =neither agree nor disagree,
7 =strongly agree). No items are worded negatively. The first section of the CRIS
contains demographic questions (e.g., gender, age), and the racial identity questions
are in the second section.
Table 2
Sample Items From the Cross Racial Identity Scale
Pre-Encounter Assimilation
I am not so much a member of a racial group, as I am an American.
Pre-Encounter Miseducation
Blacks place more emphasis on having a good time than on hard work.
Pre-Encounter Self-Hatred
Privately, I sometimes have negative feelings about being Black.
Immersion-Emersion Anti-White
I have a strong feeling of hatred and disdain for all White people.
Internalization Afrocentricity
I see and think about things from an Afrocentric perspective.
Internalization Multiculturalist Exclusive
I believe it is important to have both a Black identity and a multicultural perspective, which is
inclusive of everyone (e.g., Asians, Latinos, gays and lesbians, Jews, Whites).
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1049
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
CRIS scores have been found to be internally consistent, with reliability estimates
in the .70 to .90 range, and structurally valid (Gardner-Kitt & Worrell, 2007; Helm,
2002; Simmons et al., 2006; Vandiver et al., 2001, 2002; Worrell, Vandiver, Cross,
et al., 2004). Convergent validity for CRIS scores has been established with the MIBI
(Helm, 2002; Simmons et al., 2006; Vandiver et al., 2002; Worrell, Vandiver, &
Cross, 2004), the MEIM (Worrell & Gardner-Kitt, 2006), and Baldwin’s (1996;
Baldwin & Bell, 1982, 1985) African Self Consciousness Scale (Simmons et al.,
2006). CRIS scores do not have meaningful relationships with social desirability and
the Big Five personality traits, demonstrating discriminant validity, and only Self-
Hatred scores are correlated with self-esteem (Vandiver et al., 2002).
Procedure
Participants were recruited using e-mail, flyer, and Web site announcements at
two historically Black colleges and one predominantly White university in a large
city in the Southeast. All three campuses were in close proximity to each other and
have sizeable Black student populations. Each participant received a booklet con-
taining the CRIS and other questionnaires. Participants completed the study in an
average of 30 minutes. To encourage participation, each participant received a $10
gift card for a local restaurant.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Item means ranged from 1.55 to 5.71, with all of the SDs between 1 and 2. As in
past studies using the CRIS, means of Self-Hatred and Anti-White items were the
lowest (in the 1.0 to 2.0 range) and Multiculturalist Inclusive means were the highest
(in the 5.0 to 6.0 range). Similarly, items on these three subscales had the highest
skew and kurtosis scores, with kurtosis values greater than 3.0 on four Self-Hatred
and two Anti-White items. Subscale means (Table 3) ranged from 1.72 to 5.42, with
much less elevated kurtosis values than for individual items. Internal consistency
estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for subscale scores ranged from .74 to .88, with confi-
dence intervals ranging from .70 to .89 (see Table 3). The confidence intervals were
calculated SPSS syntax suggested by Fan and Thompson (2003).
Subscale intercorrelations are reported in Table 4. Correlations that are greater
than .32 (i.e., shared variance of at least 10%) and statistically significant (critical
a =:003) are flagged in the table. As can be seen, the intercorrelations are generally
low (Median =|.16|), with only two correlations greater than .32: Anti-White atti-
tudes and Self-Hatred attitudes are modestly correlated, and as in previous studies,
Afrocentricity and Anti-White attitudes are moderately correlated. Correlations
1050 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
corrected for attenuation are also provided in Table 4, but no other corrected correla-
tions exceed .30.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
As indicated previously, CFAs are most appropriate for assessing factor struc-
tures that are supported by theory and empirical studies (Byrne, 2006; Thompson,
2004) and are also extremely useful for comparing alternative models (MacCallum,
Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Following the recommendations of several
methodologists (Byrne, 2001, 2006; Thompson, 2004), multiple criteria were used to
assess goodness of fit. These included the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square (Satorra &
Bentler, 1994), which corrects for nonnormality in the data; the chi-square to degrees
of freedom ratio; the CFI, which takes sample size into account; the nonnormed index
(NNFI), which takes model complexity into account; and the RMSEA, as well as a
90% confidence interval around RMSEA values. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Cross Racial Identity Scale Subscale (CRIS) Scores
M SD Skew Kurtosis a 95% CI
a
(a)
Assimilation 2.78 1.32 0.71 −0.08 .82 .79-.84
Miseducation 3.65 1.33 −0.02 −0.55 .79 .76-.82
Self-Hatred 1.72 1.01 1.83 3.30 .82 .80-.84
Anti-White 1.84 1.11 1.63 2.34 .88 .86-.89
Afrocentricity 3.08 1.24 0.35 −0.36 .85 .83-.87
Multiculturalist Inclusive 5.42 1.07 −0.71 0.52 .74 .70-.77
Note: N=594; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; CI =confidence interval.
a. Confidence intervals for the reliability estimates were calculated with SPSS language from Fan and
Thompson (2003).
Table 4
Correlation Matrix of Cross Racial Identity Scale Subscale Scores
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Assimilation 1.00 .29 .21 −.08 −.17 .12
2. Miseducation .23 1.00 .29 .19 .17 −.10
3. Self-Hatred .17 .23 1.00 .39 .22 −.08
4. Anti-White −.07 .16 .33* 1.00 .53 −.29
5. Afrocentricity −.14 .14 .18 .46* 1.00 −.10
6. Multiculturalist Inclusive .09 −.08 −.06 −.23 −.08 1.00
Note: N=594. Correlations corrected for attenuation are above the diagonal.
*p <.003.
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1051
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
(1995) suggested that a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio between 1 and 2 indi-
cates acceptable fit. NNFI and CFI values in the .95 range (Hu & Bentler, 1998) and
RMSEA values less than .05 (Byrne, 2001, 2006; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara,
1996) are also indicators of acceptable fit. Maximum-likelihood extraction procedures
were used to analyze the covariance matrices based on raw scores using EQS, Version
6.1 (Bentler, 2005). The latent variables were scaled as follows: a single indicator for
each of the first-order factors was set at unity and the variances of the higher-order
models were also set at unity. Use of robust statistics resulted in corrected test statistics
and standard errors.
Five models were examined using the 30 CRIS items. Model 2 was a two-factor
correlated structure, with all Pre-Encounter subscales (Assimilation, Miseducation,
Self-Hatred) on one factor and the other three scales on the second factor. Model 3
specified three correlated factors on the basis of the three themes, Pre-Encounter,
Immersion-Emersion (Anti-White), and Internalization (Afrocentricity, Multicultur-
alist Inclusive), which also match the stage model proposed in earlier nigrescence
models (Cross, 1971, 1991). Model 4 was the six-factor model articulated in NT-E;
in this model, the correlations among the six factors were estimated. Models 5 and 6
were higher-order models, with the first assessing a general Race Salience factor at
the second level, and the second assessing two second-order factors reflecting low or
negative race (Pre-Discovery) and high race salience (Post-Discovery). The correla-
tion between the Pre- and Post-Discovery factors was also estimated.
CFA results are presented in Table 5. The initial runs included 599 participants,
but 5 were eliminated because of their substantial contributions to multivariate
kurtosis. The two-factor first-order model (Model 2) had a w
2
/df ratio more than 8.0
and NNFI and CFI values less than .50. The two factors were moderately correlated
(r =:36), and standardized coefficients were only substantial (in the .4 to .7 range)
for Self-Hatred, Anti-White and Afrocentricity items. The three-factor first-order
model (Model 3) had a w
2
/df ratio more than 6.0 and NNFI and CFI values less than
.60, and the pattern of coefficients was the same, with low standardized coefficients for
Assimilation, Miseducation, and Multiculturalist inclusive items (.1 to .3) and larger
estimates for items on the other three factors. The correlations among the three factors
were in the low to moderate range (Pre-Encounter/Immersion-Emersion=.37; Pre-
Encounter/Internalization=.21; Immersion-Emersion/Internalization=.52). Both of
these models were rejected.
On the other hand, the six-factor NT-E model (Model 4) had a w
2
/df ratio less
than 2 (see Table 5), an RMSEA value less than .05, and NNFI and CFI values of
.94, suggesting a good fit to the data. Additionally, all but one of the standardized
factor coefficients were greater than .50, ranging from .42 to .85 (Median =.71),
and only two pairs of factors had correlations greater than .30: Self-Hatred and
Anti-White (r =:38) and Anti-White and Afrocentricity (r =:51).
The indices for the Race Salience higher-order model suggested a fair fit: a w
2
/df
ratio more than 2, NNFI and CFI values in the .90 range, and an RMSEA less than .05.
1052 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Although the item coefficients on the first-order factors were comparable with the six-
factor model (i.e., in the .42 to .86 range), one of the coefficients from the first-order to
the second-order factor was low. The standardized coefficients for the Race Salience
model were .57 (Assimilation), .51 (Miseducation), .64 (Self-Hatred), .62 (Anti-White),
.47 (Afrocentricity), and -.26 (Multiculturalist Inclusive). The two-factor higher-order
model’s (Model 6) fit was almost as good as the six-factor model. The item/first-order
coefficients ranged from .42 to .85, and the coefficients from the first to the second-
order factors were as follows: Pre-Discovery (Assimilation=.22; Miseducation =.38;
Self-Hatred =.82), and Post-Discovery (Anti-White =.81; Afrocentricity =.62;
Multiculturalist Inclusive =−.30). The two factors were moderately correlated
(r =:51). Given the fit statistics, the substantial coefficients of the observed variables to
the first-order factors based on NT-E, the low coefficients to some of the higher-order
factors, and the lawof parsimony (Graham, Guthrie, &Thompson, 2003), the six-factor
model was accepted as providing the best fit to the data.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the structural validity of CRIS scores using CFAs with
the goals of testing the theoretical viability of the CRIS as an operationalization of
NT-E and comparing the NT-E model specified for the CRIS with alternative mod-
els. The results indicated that the NT-E model was supported and resulted in a better
Table 5
Fit Indices for the CRIS Derived From Confirmatory
Factor Analyses (Maximum Likelihood Robust)
Model w
2
s-b df w
2
/df NNFI CFI RMSEA 90% CI
1. Null 5745.70* 435 13.21
2. Two-factor
(Pre- and Post-Encounter)
3325.15* 404 8.23 .42 .46 .110 .107-.114
3. Three-factor
(matching NT-O stages)
2638.38* 402 6.68 .55 .59 .097 .093-.100
4. Six-factor
a
704.16* 390 1.81 .94 .94 .037 .032-.041
5. One-factor higher-order
(Race Salience)
912.54* 400 2.28 .90 .91 .046 .042-.050
6. Two-factor higher-order
(Pre- and Post-Dis)
763.77* 400 1.91 .93 .93 .039 .035-.043
Note: N=599; CRIS=Cross Racial Identity Scale; s-b =Satorra-Bentler; df =degree of freedom;
NNFI =nonnormed fit index; CFI =comparative fit index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approxi-
mation; CI =confidence interval; NT-O=original nigrescence model; Dis =discovery.
a. Expanded nigrescence model model.
*p <.001.
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1053
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
fit than all alternative models. Interestingly, some findings closely mirror the only
previous CFA of CRIS scores (Vandiver et al., 2002; N =309), with identical CFI
values for the NT-E and two-factor higher-order models. Moreover, the models that
came closest to the fit of the NT-E model in both studies were the two higher-order
models. As noted in the results, the item/first-order factor coefficients in the higher-
order models were similar across the six-factor NT-E model and the two higher-order
models. However, the coefficients to the second-order factors were the ones that dif-
fered most in the two studies. These results suggest that the six-factor NT-E model is
stable across the two samples, despite the considerable difference in sample size.
These findings are noteworthy for several reasons. Black racial identity is a con-
struct of considerable importance in the research and clinical literature (Ashmore
et al., 2004; Cokley, 2007; Cokley et al., 2001; Ponterotto & Mallinckrodt, 2007),
and the CRIS is the first theoretically based instrument measuring this construct
with scores that have been supported by both EFA and CFA techniques. Moreover,
it is generally accepted that factoring items is more difficult than factoring scales
(Bernstein & Teng, 1989) and can often result in poor CFA fit indices (Ferrando &
Lorenzo-Seva, 2000).
Of course, establishing the validity of scores on an instrument is only a penultimate
goal. The ultimate goal is to be able to use these scores to investigate questions of
interest about the constructs that those scores are measuring. Recent studies using the
CRIS suggest that these types of studies are beginning to occur. Worrell, Vandiver,
et al. (2006) used CRIS scores to demonstrate that there are generalizable clusters of
racial identity attitudes among Black college students. These researchers identified
seven different clusters that were interpretable using NT-E, and four of these clusters
generalized across three independent samples. Worrell, Vandiver, et al. (2006) con-
tended that ‘‘it will be important to examine differences among clusters on many of
the variables related to racial identity attitudes’’ (p. 541). In another recent study,
Gardner-Kitt and Worrell (2007) suggested that the CRIS could be used in longitudi-
nal studies of racial identity from adolescence to adulthood. The results of the current
study provide support for the use of CRIS scores in college student (emerging adult)
populations.
Future Research and Conclusion
The findings of the study indicate that (a) the CRIS is a viable operationalization
of NT-E and (b) the internal consistency and structural validity of CRIS scores are
satisfactory. The study benefited from having a substantial sample size, which was
gender balanced. In other studies of the CRIS (e.g., Gardner-Kitt & Worrell, 2007;
Helm, 2002; Vandiver et al., 2002; Worrell, Vandiver, Cross, et al., 2004), the sam-
ples have been at least 64% female. Nonetheless, there are several studies of the
CRIS that have not yet been undertaken. The stability of CRIS scores has not been
established, nor the stability of CRIS clusters (Worrell, Vadiver, et al., 2006). It is
1054 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
also not yet known if CRIS factors are invariant across demographic groups (e.g.,
age, gender) and if analyses based on generalizability theory will provide support
for CRIS scores.
Of course, the most fundamental questions revolve around whether racial identity is a
meaningful predictor of other attitudes and behaviors. To answer these questions will
require examining CRIS scores in relation to variables other than pen-and-pencil mea-
sures, predicting and testing hypotheses about cluster group differences, conducting
quasi-experimental studies based on group memberships established using CRIS scores,
and using temporal sequencing to observe changes fromTime 1 to Time 2, perhaps with
structural equation modeling. To use a well-known phrase, the support for CRIS scores
in this study suggests that this may be the best of times for racial identity research.
References
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective
identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114.
Baldwin, J. A. (1996). An introduction to the African self-consciousness scale. In R. Jones (Ed.), Hand-
book of test and measurements for Black populations (pp. 207-215). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.
Baldwin, J. A., & Bell, Y. R. (1982). The African Self-Consciousness Scale manual. Unpublished manu-
script, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee.
Baldwin, J. A., & Bell, Y. R. (1985). The African Self-Consciousness Scale: An Africentric personality
questionnaire. Western Journal of Black Studies, 9, 61-68.
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educa-
tional Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10-22.
Benson, J., & Nasser, F. (1998). On the use of factor analysis as a research tool. Journal of Vocational
Education Research, 23, 13-33.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bernstein, I. H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence
for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467-477.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Burlew, A. K., & Smith, L. R. (1991). Measures of racial identity: An overview and a proposed frame-
work. Journal of Black Psychology, 17, 53-71.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chappell, C. D. (1995) Construct validity of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 55 (10-A), 3136.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In T. M.
Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 169-178). New York: Holt.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preference in Negro
children. Journal of Negro Education, 19, 341-350.
Cokley, K. O. (2002). Testing Cross’s revised racial identity model: An examination of the relationship
between racial identity and internalized racialism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 476-483.
Cokley, K. O. (2005). Racial(ized) identity, ethnic identity, and Afrocentric values: Conceptual and
methodological challenges in understanding African American Identity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 517-526.
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1055
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cokley, K. O. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum on
the state of the field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 224-234.
Cokley, K. O., Caldwell, L. D., Miller, K., & Muhammad, G. (2001). Content analysis of the Journal of
Black Psychology (1985-1999). Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 424-438.
Cokley, K. O., & Helm, K. (2001). Testing the construct validity of scores on the Multidimensional Inven-
tory of Black Identity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 80-95.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of Black
liberation. Black World, 20, 13-27.
Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducing the Cross
Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 371-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2003). Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients. In B. Thompson
(Ed.), Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues (pp. 69-84). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2000). Unrestricted versus restricted factor analysis of multidimen-
sional test items: Some aspects of the problem and some suggestions. Psicolo´gica, 21, 301-323.
Fischer, A. R., & Moradi, B. (2001). Racial and ethnic identity: Recent developments and needed direc-
tions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multi-
cultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 341-370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., & Serna, G. S. (1998). Validity and construct contamination of the Racial
Identity Attitude Scale—Long Form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 212-224.
Fisher, C. B., Jackson, J. F., & Villarruel, F. A. (1998). The study of African American and Latin American
children and youth. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-
ogy: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1145-1207). New York: Wiley.
Franzosi, R. (2004). From words to numbers: Narrative, data, and social science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gardner-Kitt, D. L., & Worrell, F. C. (2007). Measuring nigrescence attitudes in school-aged adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 187-202.
Graham, J. M., Guthrie, A. C., & Thompson, B. (2003). Consequences of not interpreting structure coef-
ficients in published research: A reminder. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 142-153.
Hair, J. F, Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with
readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Helm, K. M. (2002). A theoretical and psychometric analysis of the revised Black racial identity devel-
opment model and the multidimensional model of racial identity: Outcomes on the Revised African
American Acculturation Scale-33. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 62 (10-B), 4833.
Helms, J. E. (1990). An overview of Black racial identity theory. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White
racial identity: Theory, research and practice (pp. 9-32). New York: Greenwood.
Helms, J. E., & Parham, T. A. (1990). Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale (Form RIAS-B). In J. E. Helms
(Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 245-247). New York:
Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E., & Parham, T. A. (1996). The development of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale. In R. L.
Jones (Ed.), Handbook of tests and measurements for Black populations (Vol. 2, pp. 167-174).
Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on
coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underpara-
meterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
1056 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley:
University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Social and Personality Research.
Jones, H. L., Cross, W. E., Jr., & DeFour, D. C. (2007). Race-related stress, racial identity attitudes, and
mental health among Black women. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 208-231.
Lemon, R. L., & Waehler, C. A. (1996). A test of the stability and construct validity of the Black Racial
Identity Scale, Form B (RIAS_B) and the White Racial Identity Scale (WRIAS). Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 77-85.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent
models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185-199.
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable.
Psychological Reports, 66, 195-244.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpre-
tation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, M., & Thompson, V. L. (1994). Africentricity: An analysis of two culture specific instruments.
Western Journal of Black Studies, 18, 179-184.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of ‘‘acting White’’ in Black history, community,
and education. Urban Review, 36, 1-35.
Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S., Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial-ethnic self-
schemas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 333-347.
Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). The influence of Black students’ racial identity attitudes on prefer-
ence for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250-258.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, &
L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2007). Introduction to the special section on racial and ethnic iden-
tity in counseling psychology: Conceptual and methodological challenges and proposed solutions.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 219-223.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Wise, S. L. (1987). Construct validity study of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 218-223.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sabnani, H. B., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1992). Racial/ethnic minority-specific instrumentation in counseling
research: A review, critique, and recommendations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 24, 161-187.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors on covariance
structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399-419).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimen-
sional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815.
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N, Rowley, S. A., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional
model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African-American racial identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39.
Simmons, C., Worrell, F. C., & Berry, J. M. (2006, August). Psychometric properties of scores on three
Black racial identity scales. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans.
Worrell, Watson / Structural Validity of CRIS Scores 1057
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Spencer, M. B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and ethnic minority
children in America. Child Development, 61, 290-310.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Stokes, J. E., Murray, C. B., Peacock, M. J., & Kaiser, R. T. (1994). Assessing the reliability, factor
structure, and validity of the African Self-Consciousness Scale in a general population of African
Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 62-74.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and appli-
cations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (1998). Psychometric analysis of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale—
Long Form. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 31, 138-149.
Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Worrell, F. C., Swim, J. K., & Caldwell, L. D.
(2000). The Cross Racial Identity Scale. State College, PA: Author.
Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Worrell, F. C., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2002). Validating the Cross
Racial Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71-85.
Vandiver, B. J., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Worrell, F. C. (2001). Cross’s
nigrescence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-
ment, 29, 174-200.
White, A. M. (2002) Gender role conflict and racial identity as indicators of Black men’s help seeking atti-
tudes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63 (5-B), 2567.
Worrell, F. C. (2000). A validity study of scores on the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure based on
a sample of academically talented adolescents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,
439-447.
Worrell, F. C., Conyers, L. M., Mpofu, E., & Vandiver, B. J. (2006). Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
(MEIM) scores in a sample of adolescents from Zimbabwe. Identity: An International Journal of
Theory and Research, 6, 35-59.
Worrell, F. C., & Cross, W. E., Jr. (2004). The reliability and validity of Big Five Inventory scores with
African American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 7-31.
Worrell, F. C., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current status and chal-
lenges for the future. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 201-210.
Worrell, F. C., & Gardner-Kitt, D. L. (2006). The relationship between racial and ethnic identity in
Black adolescents: The Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure (MEIM). Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 293-315.
Worrell, F. C., Vandiver, B. J., & Cross, W. E. (2004). The Cross Racial Identity Scale: Technical
manual (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Author.
Worrell, F. C., Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2004). The reliability and valid-
ity of Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) scores in a sample of African American adults. Journal of
Black Psychology, 30, 489-505.
Worrell, F. C., Vandiver, B. J., Schaefer, B. A., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2006). Gener-
alizing nigrescence profiles: A cluster analysis of Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) scores in three
independent samples. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 519-547.
Wright, E. W. (2003). An exploratory study of rape myth acceptance among African American women.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63 (9-B), 4392.
Yanico, B. J., Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1994). A psychometric examination of the Black Racial
Identity Scale—Form B. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 218-234.
1058 Educational and Psychological Measurement
at University of Bucharest on June 5, 2014 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from