...
首页> 外文期刊>Health services research: HSR >'Which box should i check?': Examining standard check box approaches to measuring race and ethnicity
【24h】

'Which box should i check?': Examining standard check box approaches to measuring race and ethnicity

机译:“我应该检查哪个盒子?”:检查标准复选框衡量种族和种族的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective This study examined methodological concerns with standard approaches to measuring race and ethnicity using the federally defined race and ethnicity categories, as utilized in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research. Data Sources/Study Setting Surveys were administered to 219 economically disadvantaged, racially and ethnically diverse participants at Boston Women Infants and Children (WIC) clinics during 2010. Study Design We examined missingness and misclassification in responses to the closed-ended NIH measure of race and ethnicity compared with open-ended measures of self-identified race and ethnicity. Principal Findings Rates of missingness were 26 and 43 percent for NIH race and ethnicity items, respectively, compared with 11 and 18 percent for open-ended responses. NIH race responses matched racial self-identification in only 44 percent of cases. Missingness and misclassification were disproportionately higher for self-identified Latina(o)s, African-Americans, and Cape Verdeans. Race, but not ethnicity, was more often missing for immigrant versus mainland U.S.-born respondents. Results also indicated that ethnicity for Hispanic/Latina(o)s is more complex than captured in this measure. Conclusions The NIH's current race and ethnicity measure demonstrated poor differentiation of race and ethnicity, restricted response options, and lack of an inclusive ethnicity question. Separating race and ethnicity and providing respondents with adequate flexibility to identify themselves both racially and ethnically may improve valid operationalization.
机译:目的本研究通过联邦界定的种族和种族类别,在国家卫生研究院(NIH)资助的研究中使用了对衡量竞争和种族的标准方法的方法论问题。在2010年的波士顿女性婴儿和儿童(WIC)诊所的经济上处于弱势群体,种族和种族多样的参与者的数据来源/研究设定调查被管理到219名。研究设计我们在对闭合NIH赛量衡量的竞争中审查了失踪和错误分类与种族相比,与自我确定的种族和种族的开放式措施相比。对于NIH竞赛和种族项目分别为26岁至43%,而开放式响应的11%和18%,分别为26%和43%。 NIH竞赛响应只有44%的情况匹配种族自我鉴定。对于自我识别的拉丁(o),非洲裔美国人和佛得角,失踪和错误分类是不成比例的。种族,但不是种族,更常见的是移民与大陆美国出生的受访者。结果还表明,西班牙裔/拉丁(O)S的种族比在这项措施中比捕获更复杂。结论NIH目前的竞赛和种族措施表现出差分差异,群体和种族,受限制的反应选择,缺乏包容性的种族问题。分离种族和种族,并提供足够的灵活性来识别种族和种族的灵活性,可以改善有效的运作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号