2 Review of “The meaning of Black history: Development and validation of the Scale of Black History Consciousness”
Chapter Author & Date of Article Review
Sara J. Finney. April 2025
Article Reference & Link
Chapman-Hilliard, C. (2024). The meaning of Black history: Development and validation of the Scale of Black History Consciousness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 71(6), 543-557. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000760
Study’s Purpose, Methods, Analytic Approach, Results, & Implications
The purpose of this study was to create and evaluate the psychometric functioning of a measure of Black history consciousness. Using focus groups, adults of African descent provided their conceptualization of the construct and experts in the domain provided critical feedback on items created from the focus groups and literature review. Two separate samples of adults of African descent (n=350 and n=366) then completed the items. Using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, results supported a 12-item measure, which was titled the Scale of Black History of Consciousness (SBHC). The authors labeled the two factors as sociopolitical beliefs and empowerment beliefs given the content of the items. External validity evidence was gathered via relations between the SBHC scores and measures of race centrality, impression management, and learning about Black history. Implications of this study are the availability of the SBHC to explore beliefs about the value of Black history among adults of African descent. Assessing the degree to which individuals of African descent believe in the significance of Black history in their lives can shed light on how Black history impacts mental health, which can proactively counteract anti-Black racism and support the ongoing vitality of the Black community.Explanation of How Article Addresses Social Justice or Equity
There is much discourse about the lack of Black history in U.S. public schools. Moreover, anti-Black racism in the U.S. has involved psychological processes that prevent or restrict access to cultural self-awareness and diminish or alter the history of people of African descent (Hilliard, 1997; Parham, 2009). Severing the connection to one’s history can have harmful effects on psychological well-being (Myers et al., 2018), affect identity formation (Parham, 2009), and hinder one’s ability to navigate oppressive environments (Chapman-Hilliard & Adams-Bass, 2016). Thus, differential access to one’s history is a systems-level equity and social justice issue. To mitigate the impact of anti-Black racism and address systemic inequities, counseling psychologists have been examining ways to emphasize consciousness raising and liberation. These practitioners need a mechanism to better understand Black consciousness and the importance of Black history for people of African descent. Black consciousness is a complex multidimensional construct, describing concepts ranging from identity development to resistance (Gordon, 2022).
Thus, the authors narrowed this construct some to develop and evaluate the functioning of a new measure that assesses one’s beliefs about the meaning and importance of Black history, the Scale of Black History Consciousness (SBHC). This measure allows for the assessment of the importance of Black history, which helps practitioners and scholars to identify how this aspect of Black consciousness is related to mental health and healing among people of African descent, a social justice issue. Moreover, this article addresses equity and social justice by modeling rigorous equity-centered processes of creating and evaluating the measures (no matter the construct of interest). For example, item development was supported by focus groups of students of African decent and these items were reviewed by four national experts in Black studies and importantly critiqued for clarity and comprehension by people of African decent. The inclusion of these parties in the measurement development process is equity centered. The sample purposefully represented a variety of different ethnicity identities (Black/African American, Black/biracial, Black/Caribbean, Black/African, etc), income levels, and areas of residency in the country so that perspectives from multiple intersectionalities were represented in item responses. Moreover, the evaluation of item functioning across different subpopulations addresses concerns about possible differential validity of inferences across different subpopulations. Recall, anti-Black racism operates, in part, by erasing Black history. Use of this measure will highlight the importance of Black history in relation to the psychological experiences of individuals of African descent. In sum, high-quality measurement tools that focus on Black history are essential to promote liberation within this community.
Alignment between the Purpose of the Study and the SEM Analytic Approach
The purpose of the study was to develop and evaluate the properties of the first measure of Black history consciousness. Generally, the scale development process involves (a) literature review and construct definition, (b) item development and review, (c) evaluating the factor structure of item scores, (d) estimating the reliability of scores, (3) assessing differential item functioning, and (4) gathering external validity evidence (i.e., examining relations with other variables that are theory-based and a priori specified). All of these steps were included in the current study. SEM can be used in this process in the following ways: factor analysis of item scores, reliability of scores, DIF across groups, and relations with other variables. This study employed SEM in two ways: assessment of the factor structure of the responses to the 12 items and evaluation of uniform DIF via a MIMIC model (but for only 1 item). Both uses of SEM are appropriate for these two purposes, the data collected, and the sample sizes.
Two Positive Aspects of the Analytic Approach
Given this was the first assessment of the items created to represent Black history consciousness, it was encouraging to see the need for multiple samples to evaluate the factor structure. That is, Sample 1 was used to explore the factor structure using EFA and to identify items that were not functioning well. Sample 2 was used to test the structure suggested by the EFA and a structure suggested by the literature. By using a separate sample for the CFA, the authors were able to find that the structure suggested by the initial EFA was not replicated. Had the same sample been used for the EFA and CFA, it is likely the EFA structure would not have been rejected because the CFA would have capitalized on model modifications being made based on the same sample (capitalized on chance/sampling error).
Given the high correlation between the two factors (sociocultural beliefs and empowerment beliefs), I appreciated that the author tested a unidimensional model. Moreover, the need to test the unidimensional model was further supported by the discussion at the beginning of the paper of related constructs that are easily confused or combined. Sociopolitical beliefs reflect an endorsement of the importance of Black history to practices that support the social and political advancements of African descent people. Empowerment beliefs reflect the value of Black history in facilitating self-determination and collective advocacy. Thus, a legitimate question centered on if individuals of African descent distinguish between sociocultural beliefs and empowerment beliefs or if both represent the unidimensional construct of Black history consciousness.
One Less Than Ideal/Negative/Missing Aspects of the Analytic Approach
I have concerns about the assessment of uniform DIF via the MIMIC model. Only 1 of the 12 items was assessed for uniform DIF. That is, one item was selected (Item 18) to evaluate DIF given literature suggesting that this item may function differently across groups given its content. I appreciated the theorical basis for testing this item for DIF, but there was no explanation for why the remaining items were not also examined. Related to this, it would have been helpful to provide more interpretation of the MIMIC model when all the paths from ethic identity status or generation status to the individual items were set to zero. This MIMIC model was correctly interpreted as assessing latent mean differences given the paths were only estimated from these covariates to the factor. However, it wasn’t explained that given this model fit well, there may be no issues with uniform DIF (that is, misfit isn’t occurring when fixing all the paths from the covariates to zero). This assumption of good fit could be formally tested by estimating the path from covariate to each item or by examining the correlation residuals to evaluate local misfit associated with setting these paths to zero. In short, uniform DIF (i.e., scalar invariance) wasn’t fully tested as alluded to in the abstract and introduction of the paper. Only one item was evaluated for DIF and local misfit was ignored in the study.
What was Found in Current Study
Scores from 12 items appeared to be multidimensional in structure when completed by adults of African descent. Specifically, a correlated two-factor model fit the data well (no local fit assessment was provided). The two-factors were highly correlated (r = .83) and also related similarly to the external variables (i.e., centrality, impression management). Uniform DIF was assessed for 1 of the 12 items and was not found (i.e., that item functioned similarly across various groups). The two factors were related yet distinct from similar constructs like Centrality and unrelated to social desirable responding (i.e., a priori specified hypotheses regarding relations with external variables were supported, thus some external validity evidence). Moreover, there were differences on both subscale scores (sociopolitical beliefs and empowerment beliefs) across student who did or did not complete Black studies courses: those who completed such courses were higher on sociopolitical beliefs and empowerment beliefs (i.e., known-groups validity evidence). Finally, there were no latent mean differences for either factor across generational status or ethic identity groups.
Purpose/Research Questions of a Future SEM Study that Builds Off Current Study
Given the limited examination of uniform DIF in the current study, the purpose of the future study would be to fully examine uniform DIF for all 12 items using the same ethic identity groups of the current study. Moreover, given the interest and finding of mean differences in the two constructs across Black studies groups, the future study would also examine uniform DIF across these groups. Examining DIF in this way will allow a second (and much needed) reevaluation of the factor structure and an analytically simple approach to assessing uniform DIF across subpopulations likely to be compared on these constructs in the future.
Methods & Analytic Approach to Address Future Study Purpose/Research Questions
Methods
Sample: The goal would be to obtain samples of African descent similar to those in the current study (Black/African American, Black/biracial, Black/Caribbean, Black/African, etc.). A goal would be to gather large enough samples to cross Black studies status with ethnic identity group. That is, instead of simply modeling ethnic identity group and Black studies status as main effects on the two factors and items, these two predictors (ethnic group and Black studies status) would be crossed to evaluate their interaction on both factors and items. A goal would be approximately 100 respondents in each subpopulation (Black/African American who experienced Black studies, Black/African American who did not experience formal Black studies, etc.). Thus, there will be ample power for the CFA and MIMIC models (total sample likely to be over 1,000). Data collection may take a year given the samples under study.
Measures: In the previous study, 12 items were used to operationalize the two factors and answered using a response scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. I would administer the same items, in the same order, with the same directions as the previous study. Regarding the measurement of Black studies, the previous study noted: “Participants were also asked to respond to questions regarding their experiences learning Black history and events they associated with Black history.” These specific items would be requested from the authors and potentially used “as is”. However, these items may need to be updated and would be vetted for clarity, inclusivity, and appropriateness by students of African descent prior to collecting data. The ethnic identity categories used in the previous study would be used in proposed study.
Procedure: Similar to the current study, participants would be recruited nationally and locally using university participant pools in psychology and education departments at a variety of institutions where colleagues of the first author work. The study would be eligible for individuals who identified as Black and as an adult (i.e., 18 years and older). Participants would be sent a link taking them to survey webpage. Participants who provide consent and completed the measure would be compensated for their time ($10 Amazon gift card). All items would be forced response (i.e., no missing data), all item responses would be timed to evaluate rapid responding, and all demographic questions would be completed after the 12 items representing the measure under study.
Analytic Approach
Responses to the 12 items would be screened and an estimation method chosen based on item response distributions: ML estimation if all response options are chosen and distributions are normal, robust ML if all response options are chosen and distributions are considered nonnormal (skew > |3| and kurtosis >|8|), and robust DWLS estimation if all response options are not chosen (data treated as categorical).
First, two competing CFA’s would be estimated: a correlated two-factor model and a one-factor model. Given the high correlation between the two factors, it may be that they are not distinct. Global fit will be assessed using the CFI, SRMR and RMSEA (in addition reporting the X2 value, degrees of freedom and test of significance). Local misfit will be assessed using correlation residuals. If neither models fits the data, model-data misfit will be investigated and explained.
Assuming either the two-factor or one-factor model fits the data adequately, the latent factor(s) will be predicted by ethic group, Black studies status, and their interaction (MIMIC model 1). Model-data fit would be assessed, with any misfit being due to fixing the paths from these predictors (main effects and interactions) to the items to zero. Next, MIMIC model 1 would be adapted to form MIMIC model 2 by adding direct paths from the predictors (main effects and interactions) to the items. If model-data fit increases practically and statistically and at least one of these paths to an item is statistically significant, uniform DIF may exist. This DIF will be reported and explained. If adding the paths does not result in better fit for MIMIC model 2 and no direct paths to the items from the predictors are significant, then the latent mean difference for each factor will be interpreted. More specifically, a latent mean effect size would be computed analogous to Cohen’s d that indicates the difference between groups on the construct in latent standard deviations. Moreover, the disturbance term associated with each factor would be used to evaluate how much variance in each factor is explained by differences in ethnic group, Black studies status and their interaction.
