Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System.
Department of Psychology.
Rehabil Psychol. 2022 Nov;67(4):610-612. doi: 10.1037/rep0000461. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
Comments on an article by K. J. Conover et al. (see record 2017-30398-007). Conover and colleagues developed and validated the self report Ableist Microaggressions Scale (AMS). Using factor analysis, the authors identified four subscales, including Helplessness, Minimization, Denial of Personhood, and Otherization. The psychometric properties of the AMS have been examined with adults with a range of disability types. The AMS consists of 20 items, and each item is scored on a 6- point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting greater experiences of microaggressions. Three positively worded items are reverse scored. The initial validation study included a sample size of 1,392 participants with various types of disabilities, an average age of 34, and a higher proportion of participants who identified as female relative to other sex/gender expressions, the majority of the sample identified as heterosexual and White. In this study, the AMS had good total-score internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of .91; three of the four subscales generally showed adequate as given their number of items: .83 for Helplessness, .90 for Denial of Personhood, and .84 for Otherization. However, the Minimization subscale displayed relatively weaker internal consistency with an a of .65. Additionally, the AMS showed adequate item-total correlations ranging from .21 to .77. Despite the high potential of the AMS to be used in research and clinical work, there are several limitations. The original validation study sample was comprised primarily of White heterosexual participants which may warrant caution in applications to racially/ethnically diverse groups and sexual minorities. Because individuals with mild-to-moderate disability may be less likely to participate in research, caution should also be exercised regarding generalizability to and use with more severe disability groups, including individuals with psychiatric disabilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
评论 K. J. Conover 等人的文章（见记录 2017-30398-007）。Conover 和同事开发并验证了自我报告的歧视性微侵犯量表（AMS）。通过因素分析，作者确定了四个亚量表，包括无助感、最小化、否认人格和异化。AMS 的心理测量特性已在具有各种残疾类型的成年人中进行了检验。AMS 由 20 个项目组成，每个项目的评分范围为 6 点李克特量表，从 0（从不）到 5（非常频繁）。总分为 0 到 100，得分越高反映微侵犯的经历越大。三个正面描述的项目进行了反向评分。最初的验证研究包括 1392 名不同类型残疾参与者的样本量，平均年龄为 34 岁，与其他性别/性别表达相比，女性参与者的比例较高，大多数样本被认定为异性恋和白人。在这项研究中，AMS 的总得分内部一致性较好，克朗巴赫的 alpha 值为.91；四个亚量表中的三个通常表现出足够的一致性，因为它们的项目数量为：无助感为.83，否认人格为.90，异化感为.84。然而，最小化亚量表的内部一致性相对较弱，a 值为.65。此外，AMS 显示出适当的项目总分相关性，范围从.21 到.77。尽管 AMS 具有在研究和临床工作中使用的高潜力，但仍存在一些局限性。原始验证研究样本主要由白人异性恋参与者组成，这可能需要在应用于种族/民族多样化群体和性少数群体时谨慎行事。由于轻度至中度残疾的人可能不太愿意参与研究，因此在将其推广到更严重的残疾群体以及包括精神残疾在内的个体时也应谨慎使用。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
