Best Practices for Measuring Skin Color in Surveys

Rachel A. Gordon, Amelia R. Branigan, M. Khan, Johanna G. Nunez
{"title":"Best Practices for Measuring Skin Color in Surveys","authors":"Rachel A. Gordon, Amelia R. Branigan, M. Khan, Johanna G. Nunez","doi":"10.29115/sp-2024-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Surveys that assess skin color support evidence building about colorism and related systemic inequalities that affect health and wellbeing. Methodologists have increasing choices for such assessments, including a growing array of digital images for rating scales and increasingly cost-effective handheld mechanical devices based on color science. Guidance is needed for choosing among these growing options. We used data from a diverse sample of 102 college students to produce new empirical evidence and practical guidance about various options. We compared three handheld devices that ranged in price, considering variations in their reliabilities and how their results differed by where on the body and with what device settings readings were taken. We also offered evidence regarding how reliably interviewers and participants could choose from a large array of color swatches offering variation in skin undertone (redness, yellowness) in addition to skin shade (lightness-to-darkness). Overall, the results were promising, demonstrating that modern handheld devices and rating scales could be feasibly and reliably used. For instance, results demonstrated that just one or two device readings were needed at any given location, and, the device readings and rating scale scores similarly captured the relative darkness of skin. In other cases, recommendations were less certain. For instance, skin undertones of redness and yellowness were more sensitive to device choices and body locations. We encourage future studies that pursue why such variability exists and for which substantive questions it matters most.","PeriodicalId":74893,"journal":{"name":"Survey practice","volume":"38 50","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2024-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Surveys that assess skin color support evidence building about colorism and related systemic inequalities that affect health and wellbeing. Methodologists have increasing choices for such assessments, including a growing array of digital images for rating scales and increasingly cost-effective handheld mechanical devices based on color science. Guidance is needed for choosing among these growing options. We used data from a diverse sample of 102 college students to produce new empirical evidence and practical guidance about various options. We compared three handheld devices that ranged in price, considering variations in their reliabilities and how their results differed by where on the body and with what device settings readings were taken. We also offered evidence regarding how reliably interviewers and participants could choose from a large array of color swatches offering variation in skin undertone (redness, yellowness) in addition to skin shade (lightness-to-darkness). Overall, the results were promising, demonstrating that modern handheld devices and rating scales could be feasibly and reliably used. For instance, results demonstrated that just one or two device readings were needed at any given location, and, the device readings and rating scale scores similarly captured the relative darkness of skin. In other cases, recommendations were less certain. For instance, skin undertones of redness and yellowness were more sensitive to device choices and body locations. We encourage future studies that pursue why such variability exists and for which substantive questions it matters most.
在调查中测量肤色的最佳做法
对肤色进行评估的调查有助于建立有关肤色歧视以及影响健康和福祉的相关系统性不平等的证据。方法论专家在此类评估中拥有越来越多的选择,包括越来越多的数字图像评分表和基于色彩科学的成本效益越来越高的手持机械设备。在这些不断增加的选择中,我们需要指导。我们使用了 102 名大学生的不同样本数据,为各种选择提供了新的经验证据和实用指导。我们比较了三种价格不等的手持设备,考虑了它们可靠性的差异,以及它们的结果如何因身体的不同部位和设备的不同设置而有所区别。我们还提供了一些证据,说明面试官和参与者从大量色板中进行选择的可靠性,这些色板除了提供肤色(从浅到深)的变化外,还提供了皮肤底色(红度、黄度)的变化。总体而言,结果令人鼓舞,表明现代手持设备和评分量表的使用是可行和可靠的。例如,结果表明,在任何给定地点只需要一到两次设备读数,而且设备读数和评分量表的分数同样可以捕捉到皮肤的相对暗度。在其他情况下,建议就不那么确定了。例如,皮肤底色的红度和黄度对设备选择和身体位置更为敏感。我们鼓励在未来的研究中探讨这种差异存在的原因,以及它对哪些实质性问题最为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信