Historically, instruments normed on White people have been used with other populations implying the concepts measured are acultural. Similarly, instruments developed using both women and men have assumed there aren't differences between the groups that may be salient. However, nuances exist and pervade each assessment. This article examines the construct validity of three commonly used health behavior assessments: Five‐Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Perceived Stress Scale, and the John Henryism Active Coping Scale. With a sample of 223 Black/African American women living in the United States, the analyses used the Rasch's partial credit model as a measure of unidimensionality. The findings reflect the complexity of measuring subpopulations using instruments normed on one group or in aggregate. Many of the items misfit due to lack of predictability or the suppression of multiple dimensions. The items that did not fit the model described activities such as “control over irritations” and having “distressing thoughts” that are experienced differently due to the intersections of discrimination that disproportionately affect Black women in comparison to their White female and Black male counterparts. Subsequently, this article advocates for the development of tailored measures of health behavior when the construct or phenomenon is experienced differently.

中文翻译：

---

测量黑人行为：与黑人/非洲裔美国妇女一起检查正念，压力和适应力量表的有效性

从历史上看，以白人为标准的工具已与其他人群一起使用，这意味着所衡量的概念是非文化的。同样，使用男性和女性共同开发的工具也假设两组之间可能没有明显差异。但是，存在细微差别，并且普遍存在于每个评估中。本文研究了三种常用的健康行为评估的构造效度：五分正念问卷，感知压力量表和约翰·亨利主义主动应对量表。通过对居住在美国的223名黑人/非洲裔美国妇女的抽样调查，分析使用了Rasch的部分信贷模型作为一维度量。调查结果反映了使用一组或总体上标准化的工具来测量亚群的复杂性。许多项目由于缺乏可预测性或对多个维度的压制而不合适。与模型不符的项目描述了诸如“控制烦恼”和“令人苦恼的想法”之类的活动，由于歧视的交集与白人女性和黑人男性相比，对黑人女性的影响不成比例，因此体验不同。随后，本文主张在结构或现象的体验不同时开发针对性的健康行为测量方法。与模型不符的项目描述了诸如“控制烦恼”和“令人苦恼的想法”之类的活动，由于歧视的交集与白人女性和黑人男性相比，对黑人女性的影响不成比例，因此体验不同。随后，本文主张在结构或现象的体验不同时开发针对性的健康行为测量方法。与模型不符的项目描述了诸如“控制烦恼”和“令人苦恼的想法”之类的活动，由于歧视的交集与白人女性和黑人男性相比，对黑人女性的影响不成比例，因此体验不同。随后，本文主张在结构或现象的体验不同时开发针对性的健康行为测量方法。