Using a QuantCrit Approach to Develop and Collect Evidence of Validity for a Measure of Community Cultural Wealth

INTRODUCTION

Students from minoritized¹ identities are critically underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields (Espinosa et al., 2019; Fry et al., 2021). The term “achievement gap” is often used to describe the educational success of minoritized students compared with those from the cultural majority. However, it represents a deficit perspective that fails to capture the pervasive inequity existing in education (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Shukla et al., 2022). “Education debt” refers to the debt owed to minoritized students based on a legacy of inequitable access to education in the United States (historical debt), persistent underinvestment in education in low-income communities and communities of color (economic debt), historical exclusion of people of color from positions of power (sociopolitical debt), and the historical mistreatment of the rights and bodily autonomy of communities of color (moral debt) (Ladson-Billings, 2006). However, attempts to address the education debt owed to minoritized students typically focus on providing minoritized students with cultural capital, an accumulation of skills valued by the cultural majority (Yosso, 2005). Such initiatives support the perception that minoritized students operate at a deficit; they lack the necessary skills to be successful in higher education but will improve if they are provided adequate resources and adopt normative practices.

Community Cultural Wealth

Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) is a framework based in Critical Race Theory that pushes back against deficit perspectives to argue that Communities of Color possess different forms of capital built on resilience, community, and culture, developed as a response to oppressive social systems (Yosso, 2005). Students can bring the knowledge cultivated at home, and within the community, into the classroom (Yosso, 2005). While these skills are often unrecognized and unacknowledged, they can be used to help students find success in academic spaces, which have not traditionally been designed with these students in mind (Yosso, 2005; Calabrese Barton and Tan, 2019). CCW reframes the deficit perspective to focus on the wealth of knowledge and cultural assets that Students of Color use to succeed in education (Yosso, 2005).

Yosso (2005) conceptualized six forms of capital that make up CCW and which can manifest in different ways for students (Samuelson and Litzler, 2016). Familial capital refers to the bonds of family and kinship forged between people that can be used to gain emotional and moral consciousness (Yosso, 2005). For example, students may demonstrate familial capital when they are supported by their family and motivated to persist in their educational pursuits, even if their families do not fully understand the educational system (Peralta et al., 2013; Rincón and Rodriguez, 2021). Resistant capital refers to the knowledge and skills developed by engaging in behavior that opposes oppressive systems (Yosso, 2005). Students may demonstrate resistant capital by serving as a role model, engaging in community outreach, and building community-based organizations (Revelo and Baber, 2018; Rincón and Rodriguez, 2021). Navigational capital refers to the learned ability to navigate oppressive systems (Yosso, 2005). Students may demonstrate navigational capital by applying skills developed in other contexts to academia, such as finding resources within the institution or intentionally building relationships with faculty (Samuelson and Litzler, 2016; Mobley and Brawner, 2019). Aspirational capital refers to the ability to maintain high hopes of success, despite the presence of real and perceived barriers to success (Yosso, 2005). Students may demonstrate aspirational capital through a strong desire to persist in difficult courses, which can improve their personal circumstances (Dika et al., 2018; Revelo and Baber, 2018). Social capital refers to the networks of people and community resources used to create support systems (Yosso, 2005). Students may demonstrate social capital by forming peer networks that provide emotional support (Mobley and Brawner, 2019). Linguistic capital refers to the intellectual and social skills attained through communication using multiple languages or styles (Yosso, 2005). Students may demonstrate linguistic capital by practicing or learning their native languages to better prepare for their prospective careers (Rincón and Rodriguez, 2021). Understanding the strengths that minoritized students use to succeed is central to deconstructing existing disparities in higher education.

Intersectionality in CCW

Critical theories attempt to understand oppression in society and explore ways to create societal change (Fay, 1987; Tierney, 1993; Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). Several critical theories use insights from Critical Race Theory to explore multidimensional identities and how racism, classism, and other forms of oppression intersect and influence our interactions with power and society (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001; Misawa, 2010; Annamma et al., 2013). Branches of Critical Race Theory integrate the perspectives of people from Communities of Color who describe the dynamic nature of oppression in society (e.g., LatCrit, TribalCrit, AsianCrit) and have expanded to include the voices of people from other minoritized communities (e.g., DisCrit, FemCrit, QueerCrit), while also recognizing that race and racism have shaped the political and socioeconomic environment in which we live (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001; Brayboy, 2005; Misawa, 2010; Annamma et al., 2013; An, 2016; Kathleen, 2023). These branches of Critical Race Theory are nonhierarchical, nor are they mutually exclusive; they capture personal experiences and theorize the ways in which oppression can manifest in our society (Moraga, 1983; Yosso, 2005).

While CCW was conceptualized with Communities of Color in mind, several researchers have sought to apply an intersectional lens to our understanding of CCW and have found evidence of CCW among a range of students, including students who identify as LGBTQ+, students with disabilities, and first-generation transfer students (Pennell, 2016; Braun et al., 2017; Mobley and Brawner, 2019). For example, Braun and colleagues (2017) explored how mentoring relationships could be used to cultivate CCW among Culturally Deaf individuals. The authors found that relationships with Deaf mentors, and with mentors who had experience working with Deaf mentees, promoted the development of social and navigational capital among Deaf students (Braun et al., 2017). Pennell (2016) described linguistical capital among queer individuals who often use verbal and nonverbal forms of communication to identify each other in heterodominant contexts (Nicholas, 2004; Knöfler and Imhof, 2007; Pennell, 2016). Mobley and Brawner (2019) interviewed first-generation engineering majors who transferred from community colleges. The authors found that students were using social and navigational capital to build community and to learn how to navigate the transfer pathway, and often leveraged familial and aspirational capital to persist in the new college environment (Mobley and Brawner, 2019). Minoritized students from a range of backgrounds and experiences appear to rely upon the knowledge developed within their cultural communities to face new challenges experienced in higher education. Our research approach applies an intersectional lens to CCW.

Measurement of CCW and QuantCrit

While several researchers have explored CCW, and the intersectional nature of CCW, most have relied on qualitative methods (Denton et al., 2020). In recent years, there has been some work toward developing a quantitative measure of CCW, but no extant measure captures all six forms of CCW capital (Braun et al., 2017; Sablan, 2019; Hiramori et al., 2021). While policy makers frequently rely on quantitative data to make systems-level decisions, quantitative approaches to the analysis of social inequality have faced critique from Critical Race Theory scholars due to the historical use of quantitative data to justify essentialist and eugenicist ideologies (Zeidler et al., 2002; Carbado and Roithmayr, 2014; Garcia et al., 2018; Gillborn et al., 2018). Developed in response to this critique, QuantCrit is a methodological framework that applies insights from Critical Race Theory to quantitative research (Garcia et al., 2018,; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). QuantCrit relies on the experiential knowledge of people from minoritized communities and seeks to foreground their insights and ways of knowing to inform research practices, data analysis, and interpretation (Garcia et al., 2018; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). QuantCrit is based on five guiding tenants, as defined by Garcia and colleagues (2018).

The first tenet of QuantCrit is, “the centrality of racism as a complex and deeply rooted aspect of society that is not readily amenable to quantification” (Garcia et al., 2018, pp. 151). Racism can manifest as a subtle component of everyday interactions and, unless researchers consciously seek to address potential areas of bias, we risk recapitulating racist views and practices (Pérez Huber and Solorzano, 2015; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). Positionality statements, where researchers reflect on their positioning within society and on how their experiences may influence their approaches to the research process, have been recommended as one action that researchers can take to consider this first central tenant (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). Positionality statements should not be used as a rationale for why researchers have the authority to engage in research with a given community, but instead, should be used as a reflexive tool to better understand our worldviews and how our positioning influences power dynamics among collaborators and participants (Boveda and Annamma, 2023).

The second tenet of QuantCrit is, “the acknowledgment that numbers are not neutral and they should be interrogated for their role in promoting deficit analyses that serve white racial interests” (Garcia et al., 2018, pp. 151). Quantitative data are often considered to be objective and unbiased. However, at each stage of analysis, researchers make decisions that can influence research findings and how they are interpreted (Lynn and Dixson, 2013; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). For example, education researchers often select variables to include in statistical models during the process of data analysis. Decisions about which variables to include are subject to researcher bias and will influence the findings of the study. Recommendations to address this tenet include carefully considering what is being used as a control or comparison group, how variables are selected to be included in analytical models, and to be transparent in the rationale for each of these choices (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022).

The third tenet of QuantCrit is, “the reality that categories are neither ‘natural’ nor given and so the units and forms of analysis must be critically evaluated” (Garcia et al., 2018, pp. 151). Education researchers often collect demographic information, such as racial background or socioeconomic status, to include as variables in data analysis. However, there are no clear lines delineating these groups. Race has no biological basis, often consists of people from several ethnic groups and cultures, and can intersect with socioeconomic status (Zeidler et al., 2002; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). For example, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines “Asian” as any “person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam” (Federal Register Notice, 1997). Students from each of these regions have different cultural backgrounds and histories and are likely to have different lived experiences as international or domestic students. Placing these students into a single demographic group for analysis is unlikely to yield meaningful findings. Recommendations to address this tenant include collecting detailed data that reflects the needs of the communities of interest, striving to ensure that categories resonate with the communities of interest, and to carefully consider and disclose how we disaggregate data for analysis (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022).

The fourth tenet of QuantCrit is, “the recognition that voice and insight are vital: data cannot ‘speak for itself’ and critical analyses should be informed by the experiential knowledge of marginalized groups” (Garcia et al., 2018, pp. 151). Research findings are rarely presented as raw data. Instead, findings are contextualized by the researcher to align with the theoretical underpinnings upon which the research is based, to meet funding and institutional requirements, and are largely a reflection of the sociopolitical context of the research environment (Lynn and Dixson, 2013). In this context, researchers have a responsibility to carefully consider how to interpret and contextualize their data (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). Recommendations to address this tenet include carefully considering how the voices of the community under study have been included in the research process, describing how the research team arrived at their conclusions, striving to make the research findings accessible to a broad audience, and carefully describing the limitations of the study (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022).

The fifth tenet of QuantCrit is, “the understanding that statistical analyses have no inherent value but they can play a role in struggles for social justice” (Garcia et al., 2018, pp. 151). Quantitative data have been critiqued for promoting normative and racist values (Carbado and Roithmayr, 2014; Garcia et al., 2018). However, numbers can also be used as a counternarrative to capture the experiences of those frequently unheard by the majority culture (Solórzano and Yosso, 2002; Sablan, 2019). If applied, quantitative methods should be used to promote social justice. QuantCrit can be used to challenge dominant narratives, inform policy discourse, and justify system-level changes in education (Garcia et al., 2018; Sablan, 2019).

We apply a QuantCrit approach to develop and collect evidence of validity for a comprehensive measure of CCW for use with STEM undergraduates. We apply the insights of critical theories to highlight the intersectional nature of student experiences and we rely heavily upon the experiential knowledge of diverse undergraduate students as participants and as researchers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present an initial development of a comprehensive measure of CCW for use with STEM undergraduates. We describe the measurement development process, including drafting items, informed by the experiences of students on the research team and by prior work on measurement development for CCW (Sablan, 2019; Hiramori et al., 2021). We then conducted cognitive interviews with undergraduates who self-disclose minoritized identities to revise items, collect evidence of validity based on response process, and to avoid construct underrepresentation (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014). Data collection methods were reviewed and determined exempt by the Institutional Review Board at Texas Tech University (IRB2022-642).

Reflexivity and Positionality

To identify potential biases within our research team, we took a reflexive approach to interrogate our world views, positions in society, and how these may influence our approach to the research process. We engaged in personal reflexivity to consider how our prior experiences may motivate decision-making by individually writing positionality statements and by engaging in structured team-reflexive discussion to better understand how our experiences shape our approach to the research process (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). We also engaged in interpersonal reflexivity to consider relationships and power between members of the research team and with research participants (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). We engaged in several team-building exercises that included self-disclosures and discussions about some of our formative experiences, with the goal of strengthening our relationships and empowering our junior members to contribute to the research process. The goal of these initial steps was to critically reflect on the process of identity formation, and to consider how culture, upbringing, and context can influence the way that we see the world. We found that we each carry intersectional identities and that our alignment with CCW reflected the components of our identities that had been minoritized within our individual communities. This collective understanding influenced our approach to item design and participant recruitment. It prompted us to carefully consider how to incorporate the unique perspectives of our research participants, to engage in methodological reflexivity to deeply consider our approach to the research process and data interpretation, and to consider how our research fits within the discipline (Finlay, 2002; Olmos-Vega et al., 2023; Walsh, 2003). As a team, we discussed methodological approaches that we could take that would best align with the five tenets of QuantCrit and questioned our decision-making at each step of the research process. Positionality statements for all authors are available in the Supplemental Material.

Four of the authors, M.T., R.A.M.F., S.B., and R.W., participated in initial measurement development. As part of the early research process, the research team discussed our interpretations of the forms of CCW capital and considered how our prior experiences and worldviews may influence our approach to measurement development (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). We also discussed our personal experiences with oppressive systems and how our individual strengths align with Yosso's (2005) conceptualization of CCW capital (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). For example, M.T. found the discussion of cultural capital, the accumulation of skills valued by the majority community, to be particularly salient to his experiences. M.T. identifies as neurodivergent; normative interpretations of learning and behavior frequently left him isolated from other students and led to unwarranted punishment by teachers during his K-12 experience. These experiences supported the development of resistant and social capital. As an undergraduate, M.T. participated in red flag protests (resistant capital) with like-minded members of the community (social capital) after it was revealed that their admissions office was “flagging” students who disclosed mental health concerns in their admissions essays. S.B. discussed the strong relationship that she has with her family and the value that her family places on education. She described the emotional support that they provide and the cultural values that they instilled as a Nepalese family (familial capital), and how those contribute to her determination to be successful in higher education (aspirational capital). R.A.M.F. also described a strong relationship with family and the development of emotional and moral values (familial capital), but these primarily related to resistance and community activism (resistant capital). R.A.M.F.’s development of resistant capital was a product of her upbringing; her parents are activists within the community and taught her about power, manifestations of racism, and organized resistance at an early age. R.W. learned the value of building relationships with others (social capital) based on a strong relationship with his mother (familial capital). These strengths, coupled with his father's experiences being an African American man in military circles, helped R.W. to plan a Black Lives Matter protest (resistant capital) with the support of police officers and local officials (social capital). Our experiences with CCW helped to shape our approach to measurement development.

Intersections Between Forms of Capital

Through iterative discussion and reflection, the research team concluded that forms of CCW capital were not operating in isolation. Instead, CCW was manifesting as intersections between each form of capital (see above examples). Several other studies examining CCW among undergraduates have identified a similar overlap between forms of CCW capital (Samuelson and Litzler, 2016; Braun et al., 2017; Dika et al., 2018; Mobley and Brawner, 2019; Sablan, 2019; Denton et al., 2020; Hiramori et al., 2021). For example, Dika and colleagues (2018) identified a relationship between aspirational capital and familial capital among minoritized engineering students. Several students were motivated to be successful in their engineering programs because their families could provide emotional support during difficult times, or because they wanted to make their families proud and be able to support their families financially (Dika et al., 2018). Based on our discussion and findings derived from CCW literature, the team concluded that forms of CCW should not—and perhaps cannot—be measured in isolation. Therefore, we proceeded to develop items that measure intersections between each form of capital, rather than each item corresponding to just one form of capital. Our approach is consistent with Yosso's (2005) conceptualization of CCW, stating that “forms of capital are not exclusive or static, but rather are dynamic processes that build on one another” (p.77).

Standard practice in measurement development is to design items that relate to only a single latent factor, the unobservable trait that is measured indirectly using the survey items (i.e., forms of CCW capital). However, acknowledging that forms of capital cannot be measured in isolation of each other required developing items that relate to two forms of capital simultaneously. Thus, the measurement model we propose involves cross-loading, where each item, designed to measure an intersection of two forms of capital, will load onto two latent factors in the measurement model. While not standard, cross-loading has been used successfully to measure psychological constructs that are inherently inseparable, such as personality, and have been used to address complex datasets (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Kenny and Kashy, 1992; Chen et al., 2012; Judge et al., 2014; Geiser et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017). Thus, we drafted items to measure intersections between each from of capital (i.e., social and familial, social and navigational, social and linguistic, etc.).

Initial Item Drafting

M.T., R.A.M.F., S.B., and R.W. each individually drafted items to capture our strengths and experiences with each intersection of CCW capital. We then met and discussed the items drafted by each individual and developed a composite measure that captured each of our unique experiences and value systems. We also incorporated items from prior work measuring CCW (Sablan, 2019; Hiramori et al., 2021).

Part of early measurement development involved decisions about how to measure multifaceted components of CCW capital. For example, student resistance has been conceptualized in several ways in the literature, and the research team considered self-defeating, conformist, and transformational resistance as we designed items for the measure (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001; Revelo and Baber, 2018). Students who demonstrate self-defeating resistance may recognize oppressive social structures and how those structures influence their experiences but may not be motivated to push for social justice (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). As a result, these students may engage in behaviors that challenge social structures, but that do not lead to long lasting change for themselves, or for others. This might manifest as removing themselves from the academic system, from a given field of study, or from the political process. Conformist resistance refers to types of oppositional behaviors that are motivated by the desire to promote social justice, but that do not challenge oppressive social structures (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). For example, a student may be motivated to improve the lives of people from within their community and may elect to do so by creating a student organization that helps other students learn more about normative behaviors in academia. They might host a training to help students learn email etiquette so that their instructors are more likely to take them seriously. However, they are not engaging in activities that challenge normative values. These types of behaviors are more likely to promote assimilation than they are to challenge existing systems of power. Students who demonstrate transformative resistance are motivated by social justice aims and engage in behaviors that challenge oppressive social structures (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). Students engaging in transformative resistance might push back against administrative polices that disenfranchise some communities of students. Based on the goals and values of the research team, which more closely align with transformative resistance, our team elected to explicitly design items that capture transformative resistance.

After items had been compiled to form the composite measure, we iteratively reviewed and revised items to ensure that we were using language consistently across questions. For example, the word “mentors” was only used in questions measuring the intersection between social and navigational capital because students who can develop strong relationships with mentors (social capital) can also rely on those mentors to help them to navigate institutions of higher learning (navigational capital). The initial measure consisted of 122 items on a 5-point response scale of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree). We intentionally drafted more items than we may need, with the expectation that only a subset of our items would meet test specifications during the pretesting process (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014).

Cognitive Interviews

An important component of validity is evidence that the respondent and survey designer both understand the items in the measure in similar ways (Desimone and Le Floch, 2004). Cognitive interviews allow an in-depth examination of each item in a measure and can reveal the thought process of the respondent (Desimone and Le Floch, 2004). Cognitive interviews can reveal the reasons behind responses and can reveal problematic items that may be misleading to respondents (Desimone and Le Floch, 2004). Furthermore, our initial development approach was limited by the breadth of experiences of the research team. Soliciting input from STEM undergraduates with other experiences and minoritized identities allowed us to identify whether items failed to resonate with a broader audience or whether any manifestations of CCW were missing from the item set. Thus, conducting cognitive interviews provided evidence of validity based on response process and content, and allowed us to safeguard against construct underrepresentation (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014).

Undergraduate STEM majors were recruited to participate in “think aloud” cognitive interviews. All students were recruited from Texas Tech University, a Very High Research Activity Hispanic-Serving Institution. The university is in the southwestern United States, in a region where ∼35–40% of the local population identifies as Hispanic. During the interview, participants verbally described their thought process as they responded to each item in the measure and interviewers from the research team followed-up with probing questions to explore how the participant understood each question. M.T., R.A.M.F., S.B., R.W., R.M.T., Z.C., and L.M. recruited participants and conducted cognitive interviews.

Items were iteratively revised as cognitive interviews revealed insights inspiring revisions. Revised items were then tested in future cognitive interviews. Thus, cognitive interviews and recruitment occurred over five phases, with substantial revisions to items occurring between phases.

Recruitment.

Interpersonal reflexivity includes recognizing the unique perspectives that participants can bring, and recognizing the power dynamics that can exist between the researcher and the participant (Finlay, 2002; Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). As part of the early recruitment process, we selectively recruited students with experiential knowledge and strengths that members of our research team lacked. For example, since the members of the research team who participated in the initial item drafting all have strong relationships with biological family members, we were initially interested in participants from nontraditional family backgrounds, such as those who had been adopted, had experiences with the foster care system, or who grew up in a single-parent household. As recruitment continued, the research team began to select research participants to address specific questions related to item responses. For example, one student with strong levels of religiosity, who also identified as LGTBQ+, responded differently to items measuring the intersection between familial and resistant capital than our other participants. To explore this relationship further, we recruited additional participants with intersectional identities related to religiosity and LGBTQ+ identity.

To identify participants best equipped to fill our experiential knowledge gaps, we developed a screening survey by which our prospective participants could self-disclose minoritized identities. The screening survey consisted of 16 open-ended questions that asked students to self-disclose demographic information (race/ethnicity, gender identity, LGBTQ+ identity, first-generation status, dual citizenship), experiential knowledge (multilingual, housing/financial insecurity, family structure, religiosity, and experiences with disability and mental health), and anything else associated with identity that prospective participants wanted to share. All screening questions were open response so that participants could self-describe their identities. The full text of the screening survey is available in the Supplemental Material. The screening survey was distributed via a daily campus-wide email blast including various announcements and advertisements.

For each round of recruitment, all members of the research team reviewed the list of candidate responses and selected prospective participants who could provide unique perspectives. The research team then discussed prospective candidates and came to a consensus on 10 individuals to invite to a cognitive interview. In each round of recruitment, we considered all the aspects of identity and experiential knowledge that students elected to self-disclose.

Participants.

We intentionally recruited undergraduate students in STEM (Table 1). The information that students disclosed on the screening survey, and that were used as the basis for participant recruitment, reflect the identities and experiences that the research team expected to be salient to the participants. However, the participants themselves may have viewed different components of their identities as more salient than other components, based on their personal experiences. To better capture the demographic characteristics salient to our participants, each student was asked to self-disclose any salient component of their identities, or any personally impactful experiences, that have shaped the way they see the world at the end of the cognitive interview. The demographic information and experiential knowledge reported for participating students was generated from the information that was self-disclosed postinterview, and from meaningful information that arose organically from the dialogue that occurred between the student and the researcher during the interview (Tables 2 and 3). Individual participants may have shared one, or several, intersecting identities, or may have elected not to share a given identity because it was not particularly salient to their experiences or world views.

The demographic data reflect self-reported information and information disclosed during reflective discussion with participating students. A full description of the demographic backgrounds of participating students is not available because some students did not find components of their identities (e.g., ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ+ identity) to be particularly salient to the discussion of CCW. Categories describing experiential knowledge similarly reflect self-reported information and information disclosed during the cognitive interviews. The category “Neurological and physical variability” refers to students who described having different physical abilities or learning abilities compared with their peers, and which influenced their educational experiences and day-to-day lives. Some students explicitly described variable abilities as “disabilities” while others did not. Two students described themselves as “third culture individuals,” which refers to a person who was raised in a culture that differs from their parents’ culture or were raised in a culture that differs from their nationality, and who lived in that environment for a significant portion of their early childhood (Moore and Barker, 2012). One student did not explicitly identify themselves as a third culture individual but described an early childhood experience that aligned with our definition of third culture and was also classified as a third culture individual. Non-traditional family structure refers to any student who was not raised in a household with two biological parents. This could include students raised by grandparents, raised by a single parent, raised by nonbiological parents, or who had experience with the foster-care system.

Interview Protocol.

Selected participants were invited to participate in a 1-h virtual interview. Due to the number of items in the composite measure, the items were split across three surveys and participants were randomly assigned a survey. Each randomly assigned survey contained ∼40 items. The goal of conducting cognitive interviews was to ensure that students understood the survey items, that they were interpreting them as intended, and that our items captured the strengths and experiences of minoritized STEM students. Our goal was to build evidence of validity for the measure, not to delve deeply into the individual experiences of each participant. All interviews were conducted anonymously. Participants were asked to select a pseudonym and could elect whether they wanted to leave their camera on during the virtual interview, but the interviews were not recorded. The only demographic data collected were those that were self-disclosed postinterview, or those that arose organically during discussion. Information collected as part of the screening survey was used for recruitment only and was not retained as data. The interviewer took careful notes during the interview, often verbatim, and noted incidents where the participant interpreted an item differently than the research team, suggested improvements, or indicated an issue with the item. The interviewer also noted items that generated a compelling dialogue with the participant. These items often arose when the item was particularly salient to the participant and prompted a detailed description of their experiences.

All items of note were reviewed with the larger research team. For each item, the team discussed how the participant was thinking about the item and identified any language that may have led to confusion. When items arose in discussion multiple times, the team looked for common patterns in participant responses. Items were revised if they consistently contained language that the participants did not understand or invoked unintended responses. Items that were brought to discussion three or more times with similar responses from the participants were considered for revision. When this occurred, members of the research team reviewed the question to identify the heart of the question and what it was designed to capture, then modified the item to reflect its intended purpose more accurately. If a question already existed in the measure that captured the intended form of CCW capital, then the research team discussed the item until consensus was reached about which item should be retained. If the meaning of each item was considered to be equivalent, then the item with the simplest language and syntax was retained. This process continued for each “wave” of interviews, where each wave included ∼10 participants. After each wave, we created a new measure that included all the revisions from the previous wave for further testing. For each wave, all previous items were retested with a new set of participants. We continued this process until we reached data saturation, the point at which no new information was generated, which occurred after five waves of cognitive interviews (50 total interviews). The full text of the interview script is available in the Supplemental Material.

RESULTS

The development of the measure involved an iterative process of interviewing students and revising items. Revisions were informed by 50 cognitive interviews and involved five rounds of revisions to the items based on these interviews.

Cognitive Interview Wave 1: Initial Assessment

The first wave of cognitive interviews consisted of 10 interviews. Insights from these interviews were used to revise 22 of the draft items. Many of the revisions involved modifying the language to be more accessible to international students and to students who learned English as a second language. For example, the item, “I will be a trailblazer that eases the burdens of those who come after me,” was designed to capture the intersection between aspirational and resistant capital, where a student believes that their accomplishments will facilitate the success of other students like themselves. However, not all students understood the term “trailblazer.” To align more closely with our intent, we modified the language of the item to be, “I am confident that my success will make it easier for other people like me in the future.”

We also found that students were interpreting the terms “family” differently from what the research team intended. To address this issue, we modified the existing definition for the term “family.” Our original definition of family was, “Family refers to the people with whom you have blood ties, who were caregivers, or with whom you have tight bonds of kinship.” This definition included the phrase “with whom you have a tight bond of kinship” to capture both biological family and chosen family. Chosen family refers to people who are not biologically related to someone, but who provide similar levels of support (Dewaele et al., 2011). This language was included to capture the experiences of students who do not get support from biological family but are similarly supported by a different community of people. Chosen family can be particularly important for students who hold stigmatized sexual identities and who often must learn to persist within homonegative environments (Dewaele et al., 2011). While the language “with whom you have a tight bond of kinship” was designed to capture chosen family, we found that our selected language did not prompt students who identified as LGBTQ+ to think about chosen family. For example, one participant was more likely to disagree with items measuring the intersection between familial and resistant capital when reading the original definition of family. For the item, “my family gives me the strength to push back against inequality every day,” the student selected strongly agree when considering chosen family but selected strongly disagree when prompted to consider biological family. These findings suggested that the student did possess familial and resistant capital, but that our definition did not appropriately prompt the intended response. To remedy this, we revised our definition of family to be, “the people with whom you have blood ties, who were care givers, and those you consider to be ‘chosen family.’” This definition appeared in every section measuring familial capital. 

Cognitive Interview Wave 2: Language Refinement and Clarification

Wave 2 of cognitive interviews consisted of nine interviews. Insights from these interviews were used to revise 47 items. The revisions involved changing the response scale and clarifying ambiguous language in the items. In their responses, we found that many students would select agree or disagree to an item and add a qualifier to describe why they did not fully agree or disagree with the statement. This was particularly common in items measuring resistant capital. For example, one student agreed with the item, “I create ways to advance the presence of people at my university,” but stated that he was “on the fence” about the question. He stated that if he saw someone from a similar background struggling, he would help, but that he doesn't necessarily prioritize people from his culture, who are well represented at the university. He gave several similar responses that we chose to characterize as “soft agreement.” As there were several students who demonstrated soft agreement to the items, we modified the response scale to add somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Adding somewhat agree and somewhat disagree to the response scale created more flexibility in how students could respond to the items, and more closely aligned with how the students were thinking about the items. We also elected to remove neither agree nor disagree option from the response scale. We found that students rarely selected the “neither agree nor disagree” option and that those selecting the option only selected it for items that needed revision for clarity. Additionally, we were interested in asking students to take a stance on items that are unlikely to prompt a neutral or ambivalent response, especially given the added flexibility of the new response scale. Removing the neutral response has been recommended because it can be difficult to determine why a respondent selects the middle option (Nowlis et al., 2002). Additionally, it is not expected to impact the validity of measure, and scholars recommend against using more than six response options, which can cause confusion for some participants (O'Muircheartaigh et al., 2000; Borgers et al., 2004; Simms et al., 2019).

We also made several revisions to clarify ambiguous language. For example, the item, “When I know I have limited financial options, I reach out to my friends and people at the university to find ways to solve my problem,” prompted varied responses from students. One student was not sure how to answer the question because she does not go to friends for help, but readily contacts people in the financial aid office to get more information about available scholarships. To address this problem, we drafted two new items, one to prompt students to consider reaching out to “friends” and one to prompt students to consider reaching out to “people at the university.” Similarly, the item, “My family introduced me to a community that taught me how to build strong relationships,” was originally designed to capture the intersection between familial and social capital, where students learn how to build community from their family members. However, the item did not capture the intended responses. One student selected agree but stated that her family taught her how to build strong relationships more than her community did. Her response more closely aligned with our intended goal, so we revised the item to, “My family taught me how to build strong relationships with others.”

Cognitive Interview Wave 3: Cultural Awareness and Resistant Capital

The information from 11 students was used to revise 25 items in the third wave of cognitive interviews. One of the most significant revisions in wave 3 involved reconceptualizing resistant capital. The research team originally designed items measuring resistant capital to only capture transformative resistance. However, responses from wave 3 revealed that domestic and international students were responding differently to these items. Items measuring resistant capital were based on our own experiences, and thus, reflected our privilege as domestic students. This was brought to light by an international student who described his experiences, and the experiences of his family, during the civil war in Afghanistan. He described hatred between ethnic communities, extreme violence, corruption, and powerlessness. He also described small acts of resistance, which may not be considered transformative when viewed through an American lens, but which can require tremendous courage in an authoritarian and militant environment.

In response to the question, “I use creative activities (art, music, dance, etc.) to challenge ongoing injustices in society,” designed to measure the intersection between resistant and linguistical capital, the student described an experience in Turkey, prior to the collapse of the Afghan government. He described an attack in a place where he knew many of the people in the community. He conveyed sadness at not being able to contact or comfort them. Instead, he did the only thing he could think of; he wrote a poem for them to talk about what had happened and shared it on a social media site. He was not sure about the impact that his effort had but stated that “art keeps people like me sane in Afghanistan” and described how it can be used as a way of expressing yourself.

In response to the question, “I fight for people like me to make my family proud,” designed to measure the intersection between resistant and familial capital, the student selected somewhat agree. He said that he tries to do so, but that it was difficult when the Taliban took over Afghanistan. He described his inaction as “cowardice” because he knew how much the war was impacting his family. He described suicide bombing, and the impact that the war had on his “brilliant sisters” who were banned from school and from work, and whose “dreams were shattered.” He felt that the only action he could take was to post on social media, but expressed doubts about its impact and expressed shame because he pursued his education rather than returning home to organize protests. This student's interview brought to light an oversight in our conceptualization of resistance, the influence of which can be largely context dependent. A social media post in the United States could potentially lead to consequences, such as loss of employment, but is unlikely to lead to extreme consequences, such as bodily harm to oneself or to one's family, or to imprisonment. This student's experiences with resistant capital were closer to resilient resistance, a place at the intersection between conformist and transformational resistance, which our items were not designed to capture (Yosso, 2000). Resilient resistance can refer to perseverance in the face of various stressors, where students engage in actions that may not change the system that they exist in, but which help them to survive within that system (Yosso, 2000; Solorzano and Bernal, 2001).

Following the interview, the research team paused data collection to address the experiential knowledge gap that the interview had brought to light. Consultation with an international colleague and with a colleague and veteran who had previously been stationed overseas, guided the next step of research process. R.A.M.F. and R.M.T. engaged in reading and discussing the book, Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, which had been recommended by colleagues to better understand small acts of resistance among students experiencing geopolitical unrest. Discussion focused on demonstrations of resistant capital, how our experiences differed from those of the women in the book, and how we might revise or add items to better capture other forms of resistance. The process led to several revisions, such as the addition of the item, “I refuse to let the expectations of others stop me from pursuing my dreams,” designed to measure the intersection between resistant and aspirational capital. We also recruited more international students to participate in cognitive interviews, with the goal of further addressing our experiential knowledge gap.

Another significant revision that occurred during wave 3 involved altering the format of the measure for monolingual and multilingual students. We found that monolingual students were frequently selecting agree or strongly agree to items measuring the intersection between linguistic capital and aspirational capital that manifests through multilingualism, despite several revisions to the items. For example, one student selected strongly agree to the item, “I am confident that knowing multiple languages will prepare me for my future career.” While the student described an interest in learning Spanish, she was not a multilingual student. To address this issue, the research team elected to add a screening question at the start of the measure about multilingualism. Moving forward, only students who selected “yes” to the multilingual prompt were able to see questions measuring strengths related to multilingualism.

Cognitive Interview Wave 4: Further Refinement

The information from eight students was used to revise the language of 20 items, and to remove 22 redundant items from the measure, in the fourth wave of cognitive interviews. One significant revision involved adding an operational definition for the phrase “people like me,” which was frequently used in items measuring resistant capital. The phrase “people like me” was intended to prompt students to consider salient components of their identities as they responded to questions. While some students responded based on salient components of their ethnic identities, some students responded based on aspects of identity that are not minoritized, such as occupation or personality characteristics. To address this issue, we added an operational to definition to items measuring resistant capital: “People like me refers to people with whom you share an aspect of your identity and/or significant life experiences.”

Another significant revision involved reviewing the entire measure to identify redundant items. Revising wording of items in previous waves had resulted in some redundancies in content among items. For example, the items, “When I need help, I reach out to my family” and “I reach out to people in my family when I need help with school” were both designed to measure the intersection between familial and navigational capital. However, the concepts conveyed in these items were already captured by the item, “My family helps me solve problems” and did not imply that the student had to actively seek out family members to receive support. To reduce redundancy, the item, “My family helps me solve problems” was retained, and the other two items were removed from the measure.

Wave 5: Final Revisions

The information from 12 students was used to revise the language of three items, and to remove two items from the measure in the fifth wave of cognitive interviews. All revisions related to items measuring familial capital. In the item, “The achievements of my ancestors inspire me to pursue my dreams,” designed to measure the intersection between familial and aspiration capital, we found that “ancestors” prompted different responses from students based on their interpretation of the term. For some students, the term prompted them to consider immediate family, others considered grandparents, while still others considered ancient ancestors and talked about colonialism and the loss of cultural heritage over time. To better capture how most of the students were interpreting the item, we replaced the word “ancestors” with the word “family.” We also found that the item, “My confidence in my ability to succeed stems from my family's support,” designed to measure the intersection between familial and aspirational capital, was prompting different responses from students who struggled with personal confidence. Students who described having low confidence were less likely to agree with the item, even when they had role models in their family to help them in school. This relationship suggested that students were fixating on the term “confidence,” and the item was revised to be, “I will achieve success with the support of my family.” The final revision included removing the phrase “long-term” from the item, “My family taught me to create long-term change in society,” which was designed to measure the intersection between resistant and familial capital. Several students stated that their family taught them to create change in society but felt that creating long-term change was more than they could accomplish as individuals. The finalized measure consists of 100 items on a 6-point response scale of agreement. A full list of items in the finalized measure is available in the Supplemental Material.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used insights from our own experiences as minoritized researchers, and insights from existing CCW literature, to develop items for a measure of CCW. Through iterative discussion and reflection, we identified intersections between forms of CCW capital and designed items to capture the ways in which CCW manifests within our own experiences. We conducted cognitive interviews with minoritized STEM undergraduates to collect evidence of validity based on response process to ensure that the respondents were interpreting the items as intended, and to guard against construct underrepresentation. Our findings suggest that our participants carry intersectional identities which influence their alignment with forms of CCW capital, similar to members of the research team. In response, we revised or removed items to better capture student experiences and interpretation of the items.

Alignment of Our Measurement Development Approach With QuantCrit

There are few methodological guidelines for researchers exploring ways to apply QuantCrit to quantitative data in STEM education (Patrick et al., 2022). Here, we hope to provide an example for how researchers might choose to integrate QuantCrit into measurement development. At each step of the research process, we assessed our methods for alignment with QuantCrit, engaged in reflexive discussion, and re-evaluated our approach to data collection.

Alignment With the First Tenet of QuantCrit.

The first tenet of QuantCrit is to acknowledge the centrality of racism in society (Garcia et al., 2018). Early in the research process, we read literature on CCW and QuantCrit, and engaged in substantial reflexive discussion. We discussed identity, positioning, theory, and how dominant narratives influence self-conceptualization and our interactions with academia and society. Undergraduates led the discussion by asking questions about the literature, or by connecting the readings to their own experiences. One such discussion included the discussion of race as described by Castillo and Gillborn (2022), “… ‘races’ have no objective reality as meaningful, biologically distinct and separate subdivisions of the human race. The things which are typically taken as markers of ‘race’ are superficial characteristics that have become inscribed with meaning through social interaction” (p. 8). Many instructors unwittingly reinforce ideas about race-based essentialism through messaging and instruction, and some members of the research team initially struggled with the concept of race as a social construct (Parrott et al., 2005; Morning, 2008; Donovan, 2014). In discussion, we addressed how race is presented in the classroom, and how this presentation often leads students to perceive genetic differences between groups (i.e., racial groups) to be larger than within-group differences, supporting a biological conception of race (Parrott et al., 2005; Morning, 2008; Donovan, 2014). We discussed data on the genetic structure of human populations that challenge race-based essentialist views, and ways in which scientifically-endorsed forms of racism have historically been used to oppress minoritized communities (Rosenberg et al., 2002; Zeidler et al., 2002). These early discussions helped us to frame our positioning and challenged us to reconsider what we know, and where that knowledge comes from. As a result, we were able identify points of weakness in our knowledge base. This acknowledgment motivated our decision to recruit students who could fill our experiential knowledge gaps during the cognitive interviews. It also motivated our decision to pause data collection during the cognitive interviews to learn more about how resistant capital might manifest among international students.

Alignment With the Second Tenet of QuantCrit.

The second tenet of QuantCrit is to acknowledge that numbers are not neutral (Garcia et al., 2018). Students, and many adults, perceive knowledge generated by a scientific body to be accurate and complete, and have not been taught to identify cultural bias within research (Zeidler et al., 2002; Donovan, 2014). Part of our early discussions involved exploring instances of bias in quantitative data. L.M. and Z.C. both discussed standardized tests administered to students in Texas public schools. One notable critique was the idea that standardized tests cannot readily distinguish between content knowledge and English proficiency for emergent bilingual students (Bach, 2020). Therefore, performance on the standardized tests could be biased against students from lower-income Spanish-speaking, or multilingual households, which could negatively impact graduation rates and funding for students within this population (Bach, 2020). Such discussions helped us to recognize the authority that we have as researchers, and to recognize that our experiences cannot be separated from the research process. This acknowledgment motivated our decision to develop items measuring the intersection between forms of CCW capital, and to develop a measurement model with cross-loading.

One notable finding from our research was that CCW was manifesting as intersections between forms of capital within our experiences. As a result, we elected to design items measuring the intersection between forms of CCW capital. Our approach allowed us to better capture nuance within our own experiences and functioned similarly for students who participated in our cognitive interviews. For example, we found that our items could capture the complex relationships that students have with family members. One student who self-identified as bisexual was more likely to disagree with items measuring the intersection between familial and resistant capital due to conflicts with her Christian parents. She described her parents as “homophobic Christian conservatives” and described how supporting people like her (i.e., LGBTQ+) would not make her parents proud. However, she was more likely to select agree to questions measuring the intersection between familial and aspirational capital, stating that her parents think that she is smart and believe in her ability to succeed in academics. For this student, familial capital was manifesting differently based on context; she could rely on family support when it came to academics, but received less support when it came to her identity as part of the LGBTQ+ community. The way that we elected to design the items helped us to get a better understanding of student experiences and to identify how identity may influence their responses.

Our acknowledgment that forms of CCW capital could not be measured in isolation required us to develop a model where items are allowed to load onto more than one latent factor (i.e., forms of CCW capital). R.W. first conceptualized how the measure could be used to characterize CCW among undergraduate students (Figure 1). Using his proposed approach, the model would consist of multiple cross-loadings in which each observed indicator is allowed to load onto two latent factors (Figure 2). This idea was initially met with hesitance from L.B.L., a faculty member, because it contradicts standard measurement practice, in which items should be designed to associate with one and only one latent factor. However, we concluded that the measure needed to capture the ways in which CCW was manifesting for our students and became convinced through self-reflection and cognitive interviews that the forms of capital could not be measured in isolation, since each is context dependent. L.B.L. and R.A.M.F. consulted with measurement experts to identify a modeling approach that would support R.W.’s proposal. We found that other researchers have used factor models with cross-loading to address complex datasets (e.g., multitrait multimethod data) and constructs that are inherently overlapping (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Kenny and Kashy, 1992; Chen et al., 2012; Judge et al., 2014; Geiser et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017). Our approach pushes back against standard practice in measurement development with the goal of better capturing the ways in which CCW manifests for minoritized STEM students.

Alignment With the Third Tenet of QuantCrit.

The third tenet of QuantCrit is that categories are constructed by researchers (Garcia et al., 2018). How researchers choose to delineate social categories can influence patterns that emerge from the data, and it is critical to ensure that the categories used resonate with the communities of interest (Gillborn et al., 2018). While we considered the full range of demographic information that students elected to self-disclose during the recruitment process, the demographic information we requested was based upon our own perceptions of how to categorize these groups. This acknowledgment motivated our decision to only present demographic data that was self-disclosed postinterview, or that arose organically from the dialogue between the participant and the researcher (Tables 2 and 3). The demographic information presented reflects the identity characteristics that became salient to students as they engaged with items designed to measure CCW. These identity characteristics likely represent the minoritized dimension of their identities, and the source of strength that the students in this sample rely on as they face obstacles in higher education.

Many minoritized students carry intersectional identities that do not readily fit into a single category, and engaging with the multiple dimensions of identity can reveal new insights about the strengths that these students have developed over time (Yosso, 2000; Solorzano and Bernal, 2001; Annamma et al., 2013). Members of our research team carry intersectional identities and our positioning motivated our decision to apply an intersectional lens to participant recruitment. We intentionally recruited undergraduates with both seen and unseen minoritized identities, as well as those with a range of experiences. We only included open-response questions so that students would be more motivated to self-disclose salient components of their minoritized identities. Through cognitive interviews, we found that the experiences of students within our participant pool had similar relationships to their identities as members of the research team. Students did not only identify as a Person of Color, or only identify as a student from the LGBTQ+ community, but instead, carried complex intersectional identities. Several participants identified as having an ethnically minoritized identity and/or an LGBTQ+ identity and described experiences with financial stability and/or mental health. How students identified also interacted with their experiences and influenced their responses to the questions. For example, when responding to questions measuring the intersection between social and aspirational capital, one international student from Africa described drawing upon multiple sources for motivational support. When a teacher who shared her cultural identity expressed a belief in her abilities as a student, it helped her to believe that she could go to college. She also had a religious identity and was able to gain similar levels of support from her religious community and religious practice. Together, her ethnic identity, religious identity, and community made her feel like she could be successful in higher education.

Alignment With the Fourth Tenet of QuantCrit.

The fourth tenet of QuantCrit is that data cannot speak for itself (Garcia et al., 2018). All data are socially constructed; decisions are guided by the theoretical perspectives of the researcher and critical approaches to data analysis should integrate the voices of the community under study at each stage of the research process (Gillborn et al., 2018; Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). Our research seeks to develop and collect validity evidence for a quantitative measure of CCW for use with minoritized STEM undergraduates. Therefore, our research approach relies heavily upon the experiential knowledge of minoritized STEM undergraduates. Our research team is composed of minoritized undergraduate and graduate collaborators, as well as researchers with terminal degrees. An important part of the research process involved navigating power dynamics within the research team and ensuring that undergraduate collaborators were driving the direction of the research. Accomplishing this aim required some dissolution of the social boundaries between members of the research team, as well as the hierarchical relationships that tend to form between students and faculty (Vargas et al., 2021). Our early discussions, self-disclosures, and team building activities were motivated by the desire to reduce the barriers between us. It was critically important for our undergraduate collaborators to internalize their strengths and develop confidence in their capacity to contribute to the research process. It was equally important for senior members of the research team to resist normative practices that might re-edify hierarchy within the research team (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2004; Vargas et al., 2021).

Our reflexive approach helped us to navigate the complex relationships between members of the research team. For example, one means of navigating power dynamics involved consistently circling back to the question, “whose voice matters?” Early in the research process, L.M. (undergraduate student) described a personal experience and asked whether that experience would “count” as CCW within our measure. In response, M.T. (graduate student) and R.A.M.F. (postdoctoral researcher) described a metaphorical box; our goal was not to ask students to conform to our conceptualization of CCW by squeezing into that box, but for the box to expand to fit their experiences. If L.M.’s experiences were not captured by the measure, then we needed to revise it. Such discussions shaped our approach to measurement development. Undergraduate collaborators drafted and revised survey items, recruited and selected research participants, conducted cognitive interviews, and defined the measurement model. Our approach prioritizes the knowledge that our students bring to table as minoritized scientists and we worked to develop quantitative approaches that better capture their experiences.

Alignment With the Fifth Tenet of QuantCrit.

The fifth tenet of QuantCrit is that statistical analyses should be used to promote social justice (Garcia et al., 2018). STEM education research is increasingly being recognized as an important research field (Li et al., 2020). STEM education researchers have also become increasingly reliant on quantitative methods, but rarely apply a critical lens to this work (Bozkurt et al., 2019; Patrick et al., 2022). In pursing quantitative research without intentionality, reflexivity, and place-based context, we risk obscuring the biases that exist in our everyday interactions as educators and learners, and we risk reproducing the inequitable power dynamics that shape academia (Gillborn et al., 2018; Vargas et al., 2021; Patrick et al., 2022). Research that explores the boundaries between the sometimes complimentary, sometimes directly oppositional, methods recommended by critical theorists and quantitative methodologists has the potential to contribute to greater equity in STEM education (Gillborn et al., 2018; Vargas et al., 2021). Our research attempts to explore this space by applying critical theories to the process of measurement development. The CCW framework gives name to the unique strengths that students from minoritized communities bring with them to institutions of higher learning, but which have been unacknowledged and underappreciated by the dominant culture (Sablan, 2019; Yosso, 2005). One of the goals of creating a quantifiable measure of CCW is to make these strengths visible to those working outside of the Critical Race Theory space. Numbers are still frequently used as the basis for policy priorities (Garcia et al., 2018; Gillborn et al., 2018). A measure of CCW could be used shift the direction policy discourse regarding student success and to motivate STEM instructors to cater to these strengths at the classroom level. We hope that our work will motivate the application of QuantCrit to other similar work within the field.

Limitations and Guidance for Use

Building Validity Evidence.

Validity refers to the body of evidence that supports the interpretation of scores collected from a measurement instrument within a particular context (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014; Knekta et al., 2019). The process of validating a new measure involves iteratively collecting several different types of evidence to support its use within a particular population (Knekta et al., 2019). In the research presented here, we have collected multiple types of validity evidence. Our cognitive interviews provided evidence of validity based on response process by providing evidence that minoritized STEM undergraduates understand the survey items and are interpreting them as intended (Desimone and Le Floch, 2004). During the cognitive interviews, we also evaluated evidence of validity based on content by evaluating whether the items represented the experiences of the participants and exploring potential forms of capital that were being missed (which would be construct underrepresentation).

However, this work presents only part of the development process; there are multiple important forms of validity evidence that we did not collect in this study. Validity evidence can be conceptualized as a chain, where any weak link can threaten the validity of the measure (Crooks et al., 1996). Thus, further work is needed to continue collecting and evaluating evidence of validity. A clear next step will be to evaluate evidence of validity based on internal structure, which is often done by collecting a large quantitative dataset and evaluating whether the internal structure matches the expected structure with factor analyses. Additionally, it will be important to demonstrate that the items in the operate equivalently across populations of students, called measurement invariance (Knekta et al., 2019; Rocabado et al., 2020). Establishing measurement invariance is necessary before the measure can be used to examine differences in the types of strengths that students from different populations/cultures rely on in school (Knekta et al., 2019; Rocabado et al., 2020). We intentionally drafted and retained a larger number of items at this stage because it is likely that these next steps will reveal issues with some items. The large number of items will allow items to be dropped as issues are discovered and create a more streamlined, final version of the measure.

Guidance for Use.

The item set we produced is still under development and the validity argument is incomplete. Thus, we do not recommend broad use at this stage without careful attention to further evidence of validity. This item set could be used in qualitative research and to support professional development. For example, our measure could be used as a reflective tool to help students to identify, name, and internalize their attributes, and serve as the entry point for the discussion of CCW. As part of the research process, we questioned who we are, where our knowledge comes from, and learned to critique power dynamics that exist within academia and in society. Our discussion of QuantCrit and CCW challenged us to question the status quo and brought to light the subtle and ever-present forms of bias that contribute to inequity. Through this research process, our undergraduate collaborators experienced substantial personal growth. Undergraduate researchers began to internalize their cultural strengths, frequently naming the forms of capital that they used when confronted with challenges as students. Undergraduate researchers developed more confidence, demonstrated more self-advocacy, and challenged themselves to pursue more opportunities. It would be valuable to explore whether responding to and reflecting on the items in our measure could help other students to experience similar gains. Additionally, integrating the measure into existing student success programs as a reflective tool could support student development and add a critical lens to professional development programming, which tends to prioritize education in cultural capital.

Emphasis on Context.

All data collected for this research were gathered by a small group of researchers employed or enrolled as students at Texas Tech University, a large Hispanic-Serving Institution with Very High Research Activity, enrolling over 32,000 undergraduate students. The lived experiences of those with minoritized identities offers unique forms of knowledge and perspectives. While we tried to address this during data collection, our research team's expertise is inherently limited by our lived experiences. There are identities and experiences that are not represented by research team members, and this poses a limitation to our measurement development process. Additionally, all data were collected as a single institution, and thus the participants we recruited likely missed some critical identities and experiences. It is possible that students enrolled at other types of institutions (small liberal arts colleges, community colleges, other types of minority-serving institutions, etc.) bring in new forms of identities and experiences that are not represented at Texas Tech University, and these students may interpret our items differently. While this does not mean that items from our measure cannot be used outside of this context, researchers outside of this context should approach their use with caution. It would be valuable to conduct cognitive interviews prior to use in a new context to evaluate whether the items capture the capital held by students in different contexts.

Use With International Students.

Students who demonstrate transformative forms of resistance offer a critique of institutional norms and engage in actions that push for structural change (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001; Revelo and Baber, 2018). Our research team made an explicit decision to design items to capture transformative resistance. We primarily focused on external resistance, conspicuous and overt behaviors that challenge institutional or cultural norms (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). However, one significant finding was that several participants identifying as international students demonstrated a different form of resistance closer to internal resistance, subtle or silent forms of resistance that offer a critique of oppressive systems (Solorzano and Bernal, 2001). This pattern remained consistent across many of our international participants, even though many identified with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Interestingly, this population did not appear to differ from other minoritized students in their responses to items measuring aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, or familial capital. This presents an intriguing opportunity for further study. However, our research team consists entirely of domestic researchers. We do not currently possess the requisite knowledge and experiences to pursue this line of inquiry, and it is outside the scope of the present study. While we made an effort to add and modify items to better capture internal resistance, our measure likely does not fully capture resistant capital among international students, who come from a range of backgrounds and cultures, and who can have unique experiences with American educational systems (Sato and Hodge, 2009). Users should approach data measuring resistant capital among international students with caution. However, we encourage further exploration of this topic.

Guidance for Avoiding Misuse.

Scientists are often taught, implicitly or even explicitly that quantitative data are factual, objective, and superior to other ways of knowing (Gillborn et al., 2018). Even well-intentioned educators who are committed to equity in education can easily and unknowingly use forms of justification that perpetuate structural racism (Vargas et al., 2021). We share our items with the larger research community so that we can collectively explore CCW theory, explore the parameters that define the intersection of critical theory and quantitative methodology, and to shift our approach to research and teaching in the classroom. We encourage researchers to apply a critical lens to any use of this measure. Researchers can take a reflexive approach by considering their positionality, which involves reflecting on their identity and how their identity informs their approach to research. The tenets of QuantCrit provide guidance for taking a critical approach to quantitative research and can be used as guideposts for appropriate use of this measure.

A tenet of QuantCrit is that critical analyses should be informed by the experiential knowledge of marginalized groups (Garcia et al., 2018). Thus, researchers should be sure to include and center the voices of minoritized undergraduate collaborators. If the research focuses on a particular community of interest, the research would be strengthened by undergraduate collaborators from within that community. Our undergraduate collaborators bring valuable experiential knowledge into the research process and seem to more easily identify decisions that lead to system justification (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2004; Vargas et al., 2021).

Another tenet of QuantCrit is that categories are neither natural nor given (Garcia et al., 2018). Thus, researchers should take extreme caution in making generalizations about populations based on responses to this measure. As outlined above, we have not yet collected evidence to evaluate measurement invariance. Thus, it would not be appropriate to use the measure to explore differences that may exist between students from different backgrounds.

The final tenet of QuantCrit is that quantitative data and analyses should be used to promote social justice (Garcia et al., 2018). Evidence of validity assesses the evidence supporting interpretations of responses to an instrument for its intended use (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014). In other words, validity evidence is specific for the goal of the use in which it was collected. The measure has been developed with the goal of highlighting minoritized students’ strengths and advancing social justice. Thus, our evidence of validity does not support using the measure for intended purposes that differ from this alignment with QuantCrit principles. Researchers should avoid using the measure to promote a deficit perspective, such as describing which demographic groups have, and do not have, a form of CCW capital. Additionally, programming interventions and interventions in the classroom should focus on changing the institution or the learning environment, not the student. Interventions that seek to increase how a student scores on a CCW measure ignore the structural barriers that students experience. While not exhaustive, we hope that this list can be used as a guide to researchers interested in using our measure for future work.

CONCLUSION

We developed and collected evidence of validity for items in a measure of CCW for use with STEM undergraduates in alignment with recommendations for the application of QuantCrit (Castillo and Gillborn, 2022). The resultant measure contains 100 items on a 6-point response scale of agreement. QuantCrit is rarely applied to quantitative data in STEM education research, and we provide a detailed description of how our methods align with the tenets of QuantCrit (Garcia et al., 2018; Patrick et al., 2022). Our approach challenged us to reconsider how we address intersectional identities and to develop a measurement model that more closely aligns with how CCW manifests among minoritized undergraduates (Yosso, 2000; Sablan, 2019). The items are designed to measure the intersections between forms of CCW capital, where each item cross loads onto two latent factors (i.e., forms of CCW capital). Our approach was able to capture nuance in student experiences and distinguish between the different sources of strength that students rely on as they face challenges at the university. Our evidence suggests that minoritized undergraduates both understand the items and interpret the items as intended. In alignment with QuantCrit, we have described limitations of our research, and provided guidance on how to use, and not use, items from our measure. Additional research will be required to collect quantitative evidence of validity for the measurement model using factor analysis and measurement invariance testing (AERA, APA, and NCME, 2014; Rocabado et al., 2020). These steps will provide additional evidence that our items can be used to measure CCW within this population of students. This development approach may serve as an example of how to apply the tenets of QuantCrit in measurement development. The items we developed can be used to highlight the unique strengths that minoritized students bring with them into our universities, and to motivate STEM instructors to cater to these strengths at the classroom level.

FOOTNOTES

REFERENCES

• AERA, APA, and NCME. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar
• An, S. (2016). Asian Americans in American History: An AsianCrit perspective on Asian American inclusion in state U.S. history curriculum standards. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(2), 244–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1170646 Google Scholar
• Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511 Google Scholar
• Bach, A. J. (2020). High-stakes, standardized testing and emergent bilingual students in Texas an overview of study findings and a call for action. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 8(1), 18–37. Google Scholar
• Borgers, N., Hox, J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 38(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUQU.0000013236.29205.a6 Google Scholar
• Boveda, M., & Annamma, S. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149 Google Scholar
• Bozkurt, A., Ucar, H., Durak, G., & Idin, S. (2019). The current state of the art in STEM research: A systematic review study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(3), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v14i3.3447 Google Scholar
• Braun, D. C., Gormally, C., & Clark, M. D. (2017). The Deaf Mentoring Survey: A Community Cultural Wealth framework for measuring mentoring effectiveness with underrepresented students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0155 Link, Google Scholar
• Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review, 37(5), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y Google Scholar
• Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411 Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016 Medline, Google Scholar
• Carbado, D. W., & Roithmayr, D. (2014). Critical race theory meets social science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030928 Google Scholar
• Castillo, W., & Gillborn, D. (2022). How to “QuantCrit:” Practices and questions for education data researchers and users. (Working Paper: 22-546). Rerieved from https://doi.org/10.26300/V5KH-DD65 Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches: Bifactor modeling of multifaceted constructs. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x Medline, Google Scholar
• Crooks, T. J., Kane, M. T., & Cohen, A. S. (1996). Threats to the valid use of assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 3(3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594960030302 Google Scholar
• Denton, M., Borrego, M., & Boklage, A. (2020). Community cultural wealth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 556–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20322 Google Scholar
• Desimone, L. M., & Le Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001001 Google Scholar
• Dewaele, A., Cox, N., Van Den Berghe, W., & Vincke, J. (2011). Families of choice? Exploring the supportive networks of Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00715.x Google Scholar
• Dika, S. L., Pando, M. A., Tempest, B. Q., & Allen, M. E. (2018). Examining the cultural wealth of underrepresented minority engineering persisters. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 144(2), 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000358 Google Scholar
• Donovan, B. M. (2014). Playing with fire? The impact of the hidden curriculum in school genetics on essentialist conceptions of race. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 462–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21138 Google Scholar
• Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. American Council on Education. Google Scholar
• Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
• Federal Register Notice. (1997, October 30). Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved February 1, 2024 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards Google Scholar
• Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205 Google Scholar
• Fry, R., Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2021). STEM jobs see uneven progress in increasing gender, racial and ethnic diversity. Pew Research Center, 1–28. Google Scholar
• Garcia, N. M., López, N., & Vélez, V. N. (2018). QuantCrit: Rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675 Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., Mandelman, S. D., Tan, M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2016). Multitrait–multimethod assessment of giftedness: An application of the correlated Traits–Correlated (Methods – 1) Model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937792 Google Scholar
• Gillborn, D., Warmington, P., & Demack, S. (2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, ‘Big Data’ and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417 Google Scholar
• Hiramori, D., Knaphus-Soran, E., & Litzler, E. (2021). Critically Quantitative: Measuring Community Cultural Wealth on Surveys. 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, 36880. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–36880 Google Scholar
• Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x Google Scholar
• Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x Google Scholar
• Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034485 Medline, Google Scholar
• Kathleen, R. C. (2023). (Re)framing student development through critical feminist theories. In E. S. AbesS. R. JonesD-L Stewart (Eds), Rethinking College Student Development Theory Using Critical Frameworks (1st ed., pp. 35–44), New York, USA: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446835-5 Google Scholar
• Kenny, D., & Kashy, D. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 165. Google Scholar
• Knekta, E., Runyon, C., & Eddy, S. (2019). One size doesn't fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064 Link, Google Scholar
• Knöfler, T., & Imhof, M. (2007). Does sexual orientation have an impact on nonverbal behavior in interpersonal communication? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-007-0032-8 Google Scholar
• Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003 Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 Google Scholar
• Lynn, M.Dixson, A. D. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Misawa, M. (2010). Musing on controversial intersections of positionality: A queer crit perspective in adult and continuing education. The Handbook of Race and Adult Education: A Resource for Dialogue on Racism, 187–200, San Francisco: JosseyBass. Google Scholar
• Mobley, C., & Brawner, C. E. (2019). “Life prepared me well for succeeding”: The enactment of Community Cultural Wealth, Experiential Capital, and Transfer Student Capital by first-generation engineering transfer students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(5), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1484823 Google Scholar
• Moore, A. M., & Barker, G. G. (2012). Confused or multicultural: Third culture individuals’ cultural identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.002 Google Scholar
• Moraga, C. (1983). La güera. This Bridge Called My Back, Fortieth Anniversary Edition: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
• Morning, A. (2008). Reconstructing race in science and society: Biology textbooks, 1952–2002. American Journal of Sociology, 114(S1), S106–S137. https://doi.org/10.1086/592206 Google Scholar
• Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality and Culture, 8(1), 60–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-004-1006-1 Google Scholar
• Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dhar, R. (2002). Coping with ambivalence: The effect of removing a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1086/344431 Google Scholar
• Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287 Google Scholar
• O'Muircheartaigh, C., Krosnick, J. A., & Helic, A. (2000). Middle Alternatives, Acquiescence, and the Quality of Questionnaire Data. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5091207_Middle_Alternatives_Acquiescence_and_the_Quality_of_Questionnaire_Data. Google Scholar
• Parrott, R. L., Silk, K. J., Dillow, M. R., Krieger, J. L., Harris, T. M., & Condit, C. M. (2005). Development and validation of tools to assess genetic discrimination and genetically based racism. Journal of the National Medical Association, 97(7), 980–990. Medline, Google Scholar
• Patrick, A., Martin, J., & Borrego, M. (2022). Critical research methods in stem higher education: a state-of-the-art review. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022036570 Google Scholar
• Pennell, S. M. (2016). Queer cultural capital: Implications for education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(2), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1013462 Google Scholar
• Peralta, C., Caspary, M., & Boothe, D. (2013). Success factors impacting Latina/o persistence in higher education leading to STEM opportunities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(4), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9520-9 Google Scholar
• Pérez Huber, L., & Solorzano, D. G. (2015). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race research. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.994173 Google Scholar
• Revelo, R. A., & Baber, L. D. (2018). Engineering resistors: Engineering Latina/o students and emerging resistant capital. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717719132 Google Scholar
• Rincón, B. E., & Rodriguez, S. (2021). Latinx students charting their own STEM pathways: How community cultural wealth informs their STEM identities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 20(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192720968276 Google Scholar
• Rocabado, G., Komperda, L., Lewis, J., & Barbera, J. (2020). Addressing diversity and inclusion through group comparisons: A primer on measurement invariance testing. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3), 969–988. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00025F Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, N. A., Pritchard, J. K., Weber, J. L., Cann, H. M., Kidd, K. K., Zhivotovsky, L. A., & Feldman, M. W. (2002). Genetic structure of human populations. Science, 298(5602), 2381–2385. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078311 Medline, Google Scholar
• Sablan, J. R. (2019). Can you really measure that? Combining critical race theory and quantitative methods. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218798325 Google Scholar
• Samuelson, C. C., & Litzler, E. (2016). Community Cultural Wealth: An assets-based approach to persistence of engineering students of color: Cultural wealth, undergraduate persistence, and students of color. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20110 Google Scholar
• Sato, T., & Hodge, S. R. (2009). Asian international doctoral students’ experiences at two American universities: Assimilation, accommodation, and resistance. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015912 Google Scholar
• Shukla, S. Y., Theobald, E. J., Abraham, J. K., & Price, R. M. (2022). Reframing educational outcomes: Moving beyond achievement gaps. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130 Medline, Google Scholar
• Simms, L. J., Zelazny, K., Williams, T. F., & Bernstein, L. (2019). Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000648 Medline, Google Scholar
• Solorzano, D. G., & Bernal, D. D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and Latcrit Theory Framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085901363002 Google Scholar
• Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103 Google Scholar
• Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building Communities of Difference: Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Google Scholar
• Vargas, J. H., Saetermoe, C. L., & Chavira, G. (2021). Using critical race theory to reframe mentor training: Theoretical considerations regarding the ecological systems of mentorship. Higher Education, 81(5), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00598-z Medline, Google Scholar
• Walsh, R. (2003). The methods of reflexivity. The Humanistic Psychologist, 31(4), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2003.9986934 Google Scholar
• Wingrove-Haugland, E., McLeod, J. & Philosophy Documentation Center.(2021) Not “Minority” but “Minoritized”. Teaching Ethics, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5840/tej20221799 Google Scholar
• Yang, R., Spirtes, P., Scheines, R., Reise, S. P., & Mansoff, M. (2017). Finding pure submodels for improved differentiation of bifactor and second-order models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1261351 Medline, Google Scholar
• Yosso, T. J. (2000). A Critical Race and LatCrit Approach to Media Literacy: Chicana/o Resistance to Visual Microaggressions. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
• Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Berson, M. J., & Fogelman, A. L. (2002). Bad science and its social implications. The Educational Forum, 66(2), 134–146. Google Scholar