{"title":"Psychometric evaluation of an Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measurement tool: an equitable assessment or reinforcing biases?","authors":"Xiaohan Mei, Jiayu Li, Zhi-Shu Li, Shun Huang, Li-Li Li, Yang-Hong Huang, Jianhong Liu","doi":"10.1186/s40352-022-00198-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Utilizing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measurement scales to assess youths' adversities has expanded exponentially in health and justice studies. However, most of the ACEs assessment scales have yet to meet critical psychometric standards, especially for key demographic and minority groups. It is critical that any assessment or screening tool is not reinforcing bias, warranting the need for validating ACEs tools that are equitable, reliable and accurate. The current study aimed to examine the structural validity of an ACEs scale. Using data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), which collected of 97,314 responses collected from adults across sixteen states. This study assessed the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the ACEs tool under the structural equation modeling framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found the 11-item ACEs screening tool as a second-order factor with three subscales, all of which passed the measurement invariance tests at metric and scalar levels across age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation. We also found that minority groups experienced more childhood adversity with small effect size, with the exception of the gender identity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ACEs measurement scale from the BRFSS is equitable and free from measurement bias regardless of one's age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and thus is valid to be used to compare group mean differences within these groups. The scale is a potentially valid, viable, and predictive risk assessment in health and justice and research settings to identify high-risk groups or individuals for treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":37843,"journal":{"name":"Health and Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9706892/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00198-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Background: Utilizing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measurement scales to assess youths' adversities has expanded exponentially in health and justice studies. However, most of the ACEs assessment scales have yet to meet critical psychometric standards, especially for key demographic and minority groups. It is critical that any assessment or screening tool is not reinforcing bias, warranting the need for validating ACEs tools that are equitable, reliable and accurate. The current study aimed to examine the structural validity of an ACEs scale. Using data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), which collected of 97,314 responses collected from adults across sixteen states. This study assessed the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the ACEs tool under the structural equation modeling framework.
Results: We found the 11-item ACEs screening tool as a second-order factor with three subscales, all of which passed the measurement invariance tests at metric and scalar levels across age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation. We also found that minority groups experienced more childhood adversity with small effect size, with the exception of the gender identity.
Conclusion: The ACEs measurement scale from the BRFSS is equitable and free from measurement bias regardless of one's age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and thus is valid to be used to compare group mean differences within these groups. The scale is a potentially valid, viable, and predictive risk assessment in health and justice and research settings to identify high-risk groups or individuals for treatments.
期刊介绍：
Health & Justice is open to submissions from public health, criminology and criminal justice, medical science, psychology and clinical sciences, sociology, neuroscience, biology, anthropology and the social sciences, and covers a broad array of research types. It publishes original research, research notes (promising issues that are smaller in scope), commentaries, and translational notes (possible ways of introducing innovations in the justice system). Health & Justice aims to: Present original experimental research on the area of health and well-being of people involved in the adult or juvenile justice system, including people who work in the system; Present meta-analysis or systematic reviews in the area of health and justice for those involved in the justice system; Provide an arena to present new and upcoming scientific issues; Present translational science—the movement of scientific findings into practice including programs, procedures, or strategies; Present implementation science findings to advance the uptake and use of evidence-based practices; and, Present protocols and clinical practice guidelines. As an open access journal, Health & Justice aims for a broad reach, including researchers across many disciplines as well as justice practitioners (e.g. judges, prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, treatment providers, mental health and medical personnel working with justice-involved individuals, etc.). The sections of the journal devoted to translational and implementation sciences are primarily geared to practitioners and justice actors with special attention to the techniques used.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
