Latino Immigrant Family Socialization Scale: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Ethnic–Racial Socialization Measurement

Latino Immigrant Family Socialization Scale: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional... Abstract The study describes multiple steps taken to develop and test the Latino Immigrant Family Socialization (LIFS) scale. Scale items were developed based on qualitative interviews, and feedback on the items was solicited from content experts including an academic, practitioner, and a group of promotoras (or lay health workers). The scale was completed by 300 Latino immigrant parents in the state of Arizona. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a six-factor model. The six factors were cultural socialization, adapt, advocate, value diversity, promote mistrust, and educate about nativity and documentation. Follow-up studies are needed to continue the measurement validation process and assess how strategies are used in conjunction with each other, the application of the six strategies across different policy contexts, and how the ethnic–racial socialization process supports children’s health and well-being. The current sociopolitical immigration climate exposes Latino immigrant families and their children to increased levels of discrimination and hostility (Szkupinski Quiroga, Medina, & Glick, 2014; Vargas, Sanchez, & Valdez, 2017). In the United States, one in four children (18 million) live in immigrant families (Migration Policy Institute, 2015), and an estimated 5.1 million live in families with at least one undocumented parent (Capps, Fix, & Zong, 2016). Thus, many children are likely to feel the effects of the current national anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiments. As primary caregivers, parents play a critical role in how children process issues related to race or ethnicity and discrimination. There has been a growing interest in the area of ethnic–racial socialization (ERS) among ethnic families, with a focus on resilience. ERS, or communication to children about ethnicity and race, is a significant component of parenting, particularly among ethnic families (Hughes et al., 2006). Evidence suggests that ERS prepares children to process, cope, and adapt to challenges related to being a member of a particular ethnic or racial group. Through the ERS process parents convey adaptive and protective messages and practices to promote positive racial or ethnic identity and combat racism and discrimination (Neblett, Smalls, Ford, Nguyên, & Sellers, 2009). Although multiple dimensions to the ERS process have been identified (Hughes et al., 2006; Ayón, 2016), most studies with Latino families have focused on cultural socialization or building ethnic pride and ties to the familial culture of origin. Minimal efforts have been made to understand or measure additional dimensions of the ERS process among Latino families. This study addresses this gap in the literature by presenting the development and initial validation for a multidimensional measure of ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The proposed measure is qualitatively informed by the lived experiences of Latino immigrant families; participatory methods were used to support the validation process. ERS ERS refers to “the transmission of parents’ world views about race and ethnicity to children by way of subtle, overt, deliberate, and unintended mechanisms” (Hughes, 2003, p. 15). Children learn attitudes, values, and behaviors from their parents that help them navigate racial or ethnic tension and adapt to the environments where they live (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010). Based on a review of the literature, Hughes and colleagues (2006) identified four dimensions of ERS: (1) Cultural socialization involves parents’ efforts to build ethnic pride by teaching their children about their heritage and culture, practicing the Spanish language, and eating traditional foods (Quintana & Vera, 1999; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995, 2001). (2) Preparation for bias is the practice of increasing children’s awareness of discrimination and developing children’s coping skills. (3) Promotion of mistrust emphasizes wariness and caution with respect to children’s interactions with members of other ethnic or racial groups. (4) Egalitarianism involves parental messaging that encourage children to value individual qualities over ethnic or racial group membership and thrive in mainstream settings, avoid discussion about race or ethnicity, and promote a color-blind perspective (Hughes et al., 2006). Research on the ERS process has been predominately focused on cultural socialization and preparation for bias with African American families (Hughes et al., 2006). Of the 44 articles reviewed by Hughes et al. (2006), only seven involved a Latino sample—all of them examined cultural socialization and only three preparation for bias. Latino Families and ERS In the last decade, an increasing number of studies have examined ERS among Latino families and youths; most of these studies have focused on cultural socialization, with fewer addressing preparation for bias and promoting mistrust. The most common measures of cultural socialization include the Familial Ethnic Socialization instrument (Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bacama-Gomez, 2004), the Ethnic Socialization Scale (Bernal & Knight, 1993), and the Cultural Socialization of Latino Children scale (Calzada, Huang, Anicama, Fernandez, & Brotman, 2012). The latter measures assess the degree to which parents and families socialize children with respect to Mexican or Latino culture; Calzada et al.’s (2012) measure specifically addresses manifestations of respeto, a Latino cultural value. A majority of the research on cultural socialization has examined the relationship between cultural socialization and ethnic identity development among Latino adolescents. Findings suggest that cultural socialization is associated with future levels of ethnic identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010). Ethnic identity has been found to protect children from engaging in risky behavior (Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales-Backen, 2011) and buffer the effects of discrimination (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). Similarly, in a prospective longitudinal study, Berkel and colleagues (2010) found that strong cultural values serve to reduce risk; that is, youths who received cultural socialization messages endorsed Mexican values more and in turn experienced fewer mental health symptoms and more academic self-efficacy over time. Although one of the functions of ERS is to enable youths to recognize and cope with discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006), few studies have examined preparation for bias or promoting mistrust among Latino families. Grindal and Nieri (2015, 2016) sought to examine how ERS messaging is related to academic performance and substance use. They adapted items from two previously validated measures to assess three dimensions of ERS: cultural socialization, promotion of mistrust, and preparation for bias. Findings indicate that the relationship between ethnic identity and academic performance was contingent on socialization messages stressing mistrust; that is, youths who were encouraged to not interact with those belonging to other ethnic groups reported lower academic performance (Grindal & Nieri, 2015). In regard to substance use, cultural socialization was associated with lower use of substances whereas promoting mistrust was associated with greater substance use (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). In addition, socialization messages were significantly correlated with peer substance use; cultural socialization serves to protect youths as they are less likely to be exposed to peer substance use social learning, whereas youths who received messages promoting mistrust of other ethnic groups are more likely to be exposed to peer substance use. In a multiethnic study on preparation for bias, Fisher, Wallace, and Fenton (2000) found that caregiver preparation for bias messaging (that is, reinforcing expectations for racism as opposed to cultural socialization) was significantly associated with youth reports of educational, institutional, and peer discrimination. The researchers suggest further exploration into preparation for bias as it “may not mitigate, and may even exacerbate, the negative impact of discrimination on adolescent social and emotional development” (p. 691). Collectively, the findings of the three most frequently assessed ERS strategies reveal the complex role that ERS plays in promoting Latino children’s well-being. These findings provide evidence for the need to “decompose ethnic-racial socialization by dimension” (Grindal & Nieri, 2016, p. 19) to understand the effects of each dimension on youths’ behavior and psychosocial functioning. Current Study Several scholars have stressed the limitations of existing ERS measures. In some instances, measures collapse multiple ERS dimensions into one score, making it difficult to examine how each specific dimension of ERS is related to outcomes (Neblett et al., 2009). Some measures are focused on attitudes about ERS as opposed to messaging that is used to convey strategies (Neblett et al., 2009). Specific to preparation for bias messaging, the purpose is to alert youths about the presence of prejudice and discrimination and help them to develop coping strategies; however, existing measures do not differentiate between various forms of coping that may be transmitted through this process (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). In addition, fewer efforts have been made to determine whether additional ERS strategies are used across ethnic or racial groups and the role that political climate may play on the type of ERS messaging that is used. In regard to the experiences of Latino families, immigration policy and anti-immigrant rhetoric influence these conversations, and documentation status adds another layer to the ERS process (Ayón, 2016). The present study begins to address some of the limitations to existing ERS measures by proposing a multidimensional ERS measure that is qualitatively grounded in the experiences of Latino immigrant families. Expanding on the work of Hughes and colleagues, Ayón (2016) developed a multidimensional model of ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The model examines six factors: (1) cultural socialization and (2) promoting distrust; the model expands previous research by addressing active and avoidant coping strategies used within preparation for bias—(3) adapt and (4) advocate—; additional strategies include (5) valuing diversity (a counter to promoting mistrust) and (6) educating youths about nativity and documentation status. The purpose of the current study is to present a descriptive account of the development and initial validation of an ERS measure based on the model introduced by Ayón (2016). The study was informed by participatory methods to engage community members in the development of the measure. It was hypothesized that the new measure would reflect six previously listed ERS strategies or factors and would exhibit high levels of validity and reliability. The ability to measure multiple dimensions of the ERS process among Latino families will facilitate an assessment of strategies that best builds children’s capacity to thrive within their environments and protect children’s mental health and overall well-being. Method Measurement Development and Design This study is part of a large mixed-methods study on the ERS process among Latino immigrant families in Arizona. One of the aims of the study was to qualitatively learn from Latino immigrant parents about how they talk to children about race, immigration, discrimination, and inequality within a restrictive political climate (Ayón, 2016). A model based on the qualitative findings revealed that parents used six different strategies. The purpose of the present study was to take the first step toward validating a measure based on this qualitatively driven ERS model for Latino immigrant families. The present study offers a detailed narrative on the process used to develop the instrument and the initial validation results. Three steps were taken to develop and design the measure: (1) Items were developed based on in-depth interviews with immigrant Latino parents, (2) potential items were reviewed by two experts on Latino family issues, and (3) potential items were reviewed by a group of promotoras (that is, lay health workers) who are Latino immigrant parents and active in their community. In-depth qualitative interviews were used to generate the items. Based on the interviews a framework was developed that reflects six strategies used by parents following an experience with discrimination. The six strategies were (1) educate about nativity and documentation status, (2) adapt or expect discrimination, (3) reinforce negative stereotypes, (4) advocate, (5) build ethnic pride, and (6) value diversity. Discrimination, the critical incident facing the family, initiated parent–child communication or parent action on behalf of their child that represented the ERS strategies used by parents. In developing the items for the measure, it was decided to omit items for the “comforting children” theme, as it was determined to be more aligned with parenting style. For instance, Domenech Rodríguez, Donovick, and Crowley (2009) characterized Latino immigrant parents as relying on protective parenting strategies, which are reflected by high control and warmth and low autonomy granting. That is, Latino parents have been found to use a combination of high monitoring as well as supportive behavior, strong communication, and low autonomy granting. These protective strategies are hypothesized to help children thrive within challenging environments. As it relates to our findings, parents comfort their children as a means to protect them and ensure their safety. Refer to Ayón (2016) for an overview of the analysis and detailed description of the model. Based on the qualitative narratives for each ERS strategy, five to seven items were written per strategy. The items were generated in Spanish and translated for the purpose of publication and dissemination. Two bilingual and bicultural research assistants translated the items, and the author also reviewed translations. In creating the items, the goal was to retain as much of the parents’ actual language and meaning as possible and to ensure that the items were widely understandable and applicable (Dumka, Gonzalez, Wood, & Fromoso, 1998). Next, the items were reviewed by experts in the field and a group of Latina mothers who were promotoras. Two subject matter experts, one academic and one practitioner, appraised the items for relevance and content. Subsequently, several items were modified to increase clarity and additional items were created as needed (that is, if fewer than five items had been originally created). Promotoras provided feedback through a focus group (N = 7). The promotoras were all parents who were active in their local community and had children within the target age frame (that is, 7-12). Promotoras completed the measure and were asked to consider the following: (a) whether the measure was easy to read and understand, (b) whether any items were ambiguous or unclear, and (c) whether the items reflected their understanding of the model and their experience (face validity). To solicit promotoras’ feedback, a series of questions were used, including “Are there any items you would change?” and “Is there anything missing from the questionnaire that is important to you?” and “Do you have any additional feedback?” The promotoras stated that the items reflected their experiences well, had general suggestion to clarify items, and specifically suggested to reframe items that had been reverse coded. Following the changes, the measure included 35 items to be considered for the Latino Immigrant Family Socialization (LIFS) scale. Measures LIFS includes 35 original items that reflect parents’ interactions with their children following an experience with a race-based issue, discrimination, or inequality. The proposed measure includes items that reflect six subscales or six ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The following are sample items for each of the subscales: (1) educate about nativity and documentation status: “Talk to child about where he/she was born” and “Talk to child about injustices due to immigration status”; (2) adapt or expect discrimination: “Tell child that discrimination is normal” and “Encourage the child to learn to live with discrimination”; (3) promoting mistrust: “Advise the child to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups”; (4) advocate: “Tell the child to seek help when he/she is discriminated” and “Tell the child to stand up for who he/she is and what he/she believes in”; (5) build ethnic pride: “Talk to the child about his/her roots or heritage” and “Talk to the child about the contribution of Mexicans/Latinos to the United States (for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy)”; and (6) value diversity: “Talk to the child about differences in cultures” and “Encourage the child to put himself/herself in the place of others when he/she is made to feel less than others.” Responses were solicited on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. The Attitudinal Familism Scale is an 18-item measure that reflects four main components of familismo: the family comes before the individual, familial interconnectedness, familial reciprocity in times of need, and familial honor (Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). The scale was scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include the following: “A person should always be expected to defend his/her family’s honor no matter what the cost” and “A person should respect his or her older brothers and sisters regardless of their differences in views.” The reliability score for this sample was good (α = .892). Recruitment Procedures and Participants A purposive sampling strategy was used based on the following eligibility criteria. Parents who were immigrants from a Latin American country and who had children between the ages of seven and 12 were eligible to participate in the study. The seven-to-12 age frame for children was used as it is a critical period when children begin to understand differences based on race and thus are more likely to engage parents in such discussions (Hughes, 2003). Following institutional review board approval, participants were recruited through four community-based agencies. Recruitment sites primarily serve Latino families and provide a range of programs. Brief presentations were used to describe the study’s purpose, eligibility criteria, rights as participants, and procedures. Parents who were interested in participating in the study completed a recruitment form with their names, contact information, and best availability days and times (used when scheduling). Interviews were scheduled with the goal of eliminating as many barriers as possible. For instance, interviews were completed at a time that fit best for the respondents’ schedules (including weekends) and in their homes or mutually agreed location. The interviewers read the items to participants and recorded their responses. This approach was used to eliminate any literacy barriers. The structured interviews ranged in duration from 60 to 75 minutes. All interviews were completed in Spanish. Participants received a $30 remuneration to partially compensate them for their time. Analyses The analysis involved four steps. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was completed on the 35 items using Mplus statistical software (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) with GEOMIN oblique rotation. Preliminary descriptive analyses on the 35 items revealed that some of the items were skewed and kurtotic. Maximum likelihood restricted estimation was used as it offers maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and chi-square test statistics that are more robust to nonnormality). EFA was used to reduce the number of items. Factor loadings for each item were examined (for example, <.40). The second step involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA was completed on remaining items. The following empirically supported indices were used to assess model fit: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90 percent confidence interval (CI). For the CFI and TLI, values above .90 are considered acceptable; and the RMSEA values should be <.05, although values below .08 are also considered reasonable (Browne & Cudeck, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999). When model fit was deemed unacceptable, the factor loadings were reviewed. The decision to remove an item was made when factor loadings were below .40 to increase interpretability; when items were deemed to theoretically measure same construct, the item with a higher factor loading was retained. As items were identified and removed, EFAs were repeated with the reduced number of items. The final CFA model was run with the reduced number of items. Third, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency for each subscale. Fourth, correlations between the LIFS subscales, familismo scores, and years in the United States were conducted to examine the validity of the measure. Familismo is a Latino cultural value that honors family unity, loyalty, and support for family members (Calzada, Tamis-LeMonda, & Yoshikawa, 2013). Familismo has been found to be protective of the child-rearing process and offer immigrants emotional, financial, and instrumental support (Calzada et al., 2013). In accordance with these findings, it was expected that some of the LIFS subscales would be positively related to familismo whereas others would not. In addition, it was expected that with increased years in the United States parents would engage in less frequent ERS practices. That is, as parents integrate into the U.S. culture, some of the race- or ethnicity-related issues that arise may be interpreted as “normal” and thus parents would engage in ERS practices less frequently. This validity analysis provides an index of how the ERS process is adapted by parents based on their ties to their culture of origin (familismo) and their integration process (years in the United States). Results Descriptive Statistics Three hundred parents participated in the study. Eighty-three (n = 248) percent of the participants were mothers, 17.3 percent (n = 52) were fathers. A majority of the participants were Mexican (94 percent) and married (86 percent). On average, participants were 38 years old (SD = 6.68) and had three children (SD = 1.12). Participants’ education ranged from less than a high school education (57 percent) to high school graduate (17 percent) and some college education to BA (26 percent). Nearly 60 percent of the participants reported family incomes of $25,000 or less. All of the participants were immigrants; the average age at time of migration to the United States was 21 years (SD = 6.79). Participants had resided in the United States on average 15.8 years (SD = 6.422). A majority of the participants reported that they originally migrated to the United States to find good jobs or earn a better income (n = 126; 42 percent) or to provide children with an education or better opportunities (n = 82; 27 percent). Nearly 60 percent of the participants had never returned to their country of origin, and 40 percent reported that at least one of their family members had been deported. EFA The EFA with the original 35 items revealed five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and one with an eigenvalue of .750. However, the fit indices were not initially acceptable. Several items had low factor loadings (<.40) and items loaded on multiple factors. Items were removed one at a time, and EFA was rerun at each step. The final EFA included 27 items with five eigenvalues greater than 1 and one eigenvalue at .750 (CFI = .980, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .43, 95% CI = .038–.049). The sixth factor, with eigenvalues below 1, was retained as the items were theoretically driven. The factor loadings were strong (that is, above .40). CFA The final CFA was completed using the 27 remaining items. The 27 items loaded onto the six proposed factors well (CFI = .920, TLI = .909, RMSEA = .070, 95% CI = .066–.074). Figure 1 includes standardized factor loadings for the six factors for the LIFS scale. Each factor contains between three and five items. In practice, each factor should serve as a subscale with high scores representing greater affirmation of the construct. Descriptive statistics are presented for each item included in the LIFS scale in Table 1. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Note: TC = target child (that is, the child who parents focused on during the interview). Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Note: TC = target child (that is, the child who parents focused on during the interview). Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Items Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Note: TC = target child. Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Items Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Note: TC = target child. Reliability and Validity Analysis Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .707 to .832 (see Table 2). To test the validity of the scale, correlations were conducted between the LIFS subscale scores, familismo, and years in the United States (see Table 3). A significant positive relationship was found between familismo and four LIFS subscales—cultural socialization, educate about nativity and documentation, value diversity, and promote mistrust. This pattern of findings was expected as familismo is rooted in (a) cultural practices (cultural socialization); (b) family unity, which is placed at risk by the current anti-immigrant legislation, thus necessitating conversation about immigration status and nativity; (c) supporting and protecting family members—under the current immigration context, promoting wariness of others may be done as a way to protect family members; and (d) understanding and valuing others, which is consistent with familismo as well as with community orientation within the Latino culture. As expected, significant negative correlations were found between years in the United States and four of the LIFS subscales. That is, with longer duration in the United States, parents engaged less frequently in advocacy, cultural socialization, education about nativity and documentation, and promoting value of diversity strategies. It is possible that years in the United States serves as a proxy to documentation status, thus families who are documented may not experience incidents of discrimination as frequently or may not engage in discussion about immigration issues as they are not always experienced directly. In addition, as families integrate, they may not engage in cultural socialization as frequently. Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for the Subscales Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for the Subscales Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Table 3: Validity Correlations LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 Note: LIFS = Latino Immigrant Family Socialization. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 3: Validity Correlations LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 Note: LIFS = Latino Immigrant Family Socialization. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p ≤ .001. Discussion The present study provides initial empirical support for the validity and reliability of the LIFS measure. The measure was designed to assess multiple dimensions of the ERS process for Latino immigrant families. Given the current national restrictive immigration rhetoric and sentiments, it is critical to understand how Latino families are discussing issues of race, discrimination, and inequality with their children. The six factors build on previous ERS models and expand our understanding of the strategies used by Latino families as informed by their lived experiences. The analyses confirmed six interrelated factors—adapt, advocate, cultural socialization, value diversity, promote mistrust, and educate about nativity and documentation. Cultural socialization, measured by five items, is the ERS strategy most frequently studied among Latinos (Hughes et al., 2006). The items in this measure are similar to those seen in the most frequently used cultural socialization instruments (see Bernal & Knight, 1993; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). These items speak to parents’ commitment to transmit their cultural practices and knowledge to their children. The next factor, promoting mistrust, include three items. These items reflect parents’ wariness in their interactions with members of other ethnic groups. In the proposed LIFS measure, preparation for bias is captured by two factors—adapt and advocate. As originally conceptualized, preparation for bias strategies are meant to help children understand that they will be discriminated because of their race or ethnicity and to teach them how to develop coping strategies. A limitation of previous measure of preparation for bias has been that the type of coping strategies parents share with children have not been captured well (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). The factors adapt (five items) and advocate (four items) both prepare children for understanding discrimination and prejudice; however, one supports developing avoidant coping strategies (adapt or ignore discriminatory comments) whereas the other promotes active coping (advocate, let others know you do not like what they are saying, or find an adult for support). The literature on coping among Latino youths reveals conflicting evidence: Basáñez, Warren, Crano, and Unger (2014) found that high perceived intragroup rejection and low levels of active coping were associated with depressive symptoms and that avoidant coping strategies were also related to depressive symptoms. A more nuanced look at coping found that youths’ cultural orientation was associated with the type of coping strategy they used (Brittian, Toomey, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2013). Brittian and colleagues (2013) indicated that distraction coping strategies (that is, engaging in recreational activities) buffered the effects of perceived discrimination on internalizing symptoms among Latino youths with low Anglo orientation, but for youths who were low on Mexican orientation, social support seeking coping buffered the relationship between perceived discrimination and externalizing symptoms. The inclusions of both avoidant and active coping strategies within the measure will facilitate further exploration on which type of coping Latino parents engender in their children and allow for analysis of which type of coping is more protective of children’s well-being. The current immigration political context adds a critical layer to our understanding of how Latino immigrant families engage children in the ERS process. Two factors respond to the immigration political context—educate about nativity and documentation and value diversity. First, educating children about nationality and deportation encompasses five items. These items reflect parent–child communication about nativity, documentation status, rights associated with documentation status, and meaning of citizenship and of being an immigrant. This factor represents a critical dimension of the ERS process for Latino families because when children learn that they, a family member, or peer is undocumented, the threat to their family and community becomes more salient for them as they understand the risk of deportation. Some parents may aim to shield their children from such information to protect their children, and others take a more proactive approach to these discussion (see Philbin & Ayón, 2016). Regardless of parents’ intentions, discussions about these issues often emerge, particularly following an experience with discrimination (for example, hearing “Go back to your country” or “I’m going to call ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to deport your parents”). Assessing how parents approach this issue will allow for further understanding of how such issues affect children’s psychosocial well-being. The final factor, value diversity, includes five items. These items address parents’ efforts to strengthen children’s tolerance and empathy for others and educate their children about the diversity in cultural practices. In response to the restrictive and often hostile environment Latino families encounter, Latino parents aim to teach their children to be respectful of others and to embrace their differences. This dimension of the measure provides an opposing strategy to promoting mistrust. That is, instead of framing differences as negative attributes, items in this factor stress the strengths in differences and similarities across groups such as “we are all humans.” Limitations There are a few limitations to the study. The model from which the measure is drawn is based on interviews with Latino immigrant families in the state of Arizona. Arizona is known for being at the forefront in passing restrictive immigration policies; therefore, the experiences of Latino immigrant families and how they engage in the ERS process may be different compared with those of families who reside in states with a more immigrant integrationist position. The data are informed by families in which the parents are immigrants; thus, additional research is needed to determine if the measure applies to second- and third (or more) generation families who may not be as affected by the immigration political climate. However, the study provides evidence to support the initial validation of a multidimensional ERS measure that is grounded in the lived experiences of Latino immigrant families. Implications for Future Research First, additional steps are needed to support the validation process for the measure. Data should be collected from additional samples to address the sampling limitations. Additional research is needed to understand the combination of strategies used by parents and which strategies support the healthy development of children. For instance, do parents prefer certain strategies over others and use a combination of strategies? And do the types of strategies parents use vary by children’s age? From a resiliency and strengths perspective, greater understanding of the relationship between multiple dimensions of the ERS process and children’s outcomes will support identifying areas where we can intervene to support the health and well-being of Latino families. The ERS process is a bidirectional process (Umaña-Taylor, Zeiders, & Updegraff, 2013); parents play a significant role in the ERS process by supporting their children and building their coping skills, but children’s experiences with issues of race and discrimination, subsequent questions, and understanding and integration of parental advice and modeled behavior also inform the ERS process. Therefore, future studies should assess children’s perspective on the ERS process and ascertain that their experiences are captured by existing measures. References Ayón , C. ( 2016 ). Talking to children about race, inequality, and discrimination: Raising families in an anti-immigrant political environment . Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7 , 449 – 477 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Basáñez , T. , Warren , M. T. , Crano , W. D. , & Unger , J. B. ( 2014 ). Perceptions of intragroup rejection and coping strategies: Malleable factors affecting Hispanic adolescents’ emotional and academic outcomes . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 , 1266 – 1280 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Berkel , C. , Knight , G. P. , Zeiders , K. H. , Tein , J. Y. , Roosa , M. W. , Gonzales , N. A. , & Saenz , D. ( 2010 ). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexican American adolescents: A prospective examination of the benefits of culturally related values . Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20 , 893 – 915 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bernal , M. E. , & Knight , G. P. (Eds.). ( 1993 ). Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities . Albany : State University of New York Press . Brittian , A. S. , Toomey , R. B. , Gonzales , N. A. , & Dumka , L. E. ( 2013 ). Perceived discrimination, coping strategies, and Mexican origin adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Examining the moderating role of gender and cultural orientation . Applied Developmental Science, 17 ( 1 ), 4 – 19 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Browne , M. W. , & Cudeck , R. ( 1989 ). Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance structures . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24 , 445 – 455 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Calzada , E. J. , Huang , K.-Y. , Anicama , C. , Fernandez , Y. , & Brotman , L. M. ( 2012 ). Test of a cultural framework of parenting with Latino families of young children . Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18 , 285 – 296 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Calzada , E. J. , Tamis-LeMonda , C. S. , & Yoshikawa , H. ( 2013 ). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from low-income, urban communities . Journal of Family Issues, 34 , 1696 – 1724 . doi:10.1177/0192513×12460218 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Capps , R. , Fix , M. , & Zong , J. ( 2016 ). A profile of U.S. children with unauthorized immigrant parents. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/profile-us-children-unauthorized-immigrant-parents Domenech Rodríguez , M. M. , Donovick , M. , & Crowley , S. L. ( 2009 ). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observation of “protective parenting” in first-generation Latinos . Family Process, 48 , 195 – 210 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Dumka , L. E. , Gonzalez , N. A. , Wood , J. L. , & Fromoso , D. ( 1998 ). Using qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and preventive interventions: An illustration . American Journal of Community Psychology, 26 , 605 – 637 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fisher , C. B. , Wallace , S. A. , & Fenton , R. E. ( 2000 ). Discrimination distress during adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 , 679 – 695 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grindal , M. , & Nieri , T. ( 2015 ). An examination of ethnic identity and academic performance: Assessing the multidimensional role of parental ethnic–racial socialization among a sample of Latino adolescents . Race and Social Problems, 7 , 242 – 255 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grindal , M. , & Nieri , T. ( 2016 ). The relationship between ethnic-racial socialization and adolescent substance use: An examination of social learning as a causal mechanism . Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 15 ( 1 ), 3 – 24 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hu , L. T. , & Bentler , P. M. ( 1999 ). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Structural Equation Modeling, 6 ( 1 ), 1 – 55 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hughes , D. ( 2003 ). Correlates of African American and Latino parents’ messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization . American Journal of Community Psychology, 31 , 15 – 33 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hughes , D. , Rodriguez , J. , Smith , E. P. , Johnson , D. J. , Stevenson , H. C. , & Spicer , P. ( 2006 ). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study . Developmental Psychology, 42 , 747 – 770 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lugo Steidel , A. G. , & Contreras , J. M. ( 2003 ). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 , 312 – 330 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Migration Policy Institute . ( 2015 ). State immigration data profiles. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/US Muthén , L. K. , & Muthén , B. O. ( 2007 ). Mplus user’s guide (1998-2007) ( 5th ed. ). Los Angeles : Author . Neblett , E. W. , Smalls , C. P. , Ford , K. R. , Nguyên , H. X. , & Sellers , R. M. ( 2009 ). Racial socialization and racial identity: African American parents’ messages about race as precursors to identity . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 , 189 – 203 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Philbin , S. P. , & Ayón , C. ( 2016 ). Luchamos por nuestros hijos: Latino immigrant parents strive to protect their children from the deleterious effects of anti-immigration policies . Children and Youth Services Review, 63 , 123 – 135 . doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.019 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Quintana , S. M. , & Vera , E. M. ( 1999 ). Mexican American children’s ethnic identity, understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic socialization . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21 , 387 – 404 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Suárez-Orozco , C. , & Suárez-Orozco , M. M. ( 1995 ). Transformation: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Suárez-Orozco , C. , & Suárez-Orozco , M. M. ( 2001 ). Children of immigration . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Szkupinski Quiroga , S. , Medina , D. M. , & Glick , J. ( 2014 ). In the belly of the beast: Effects of anti-immigration policy on Latino community members . American Behavioral Scientist, 58 , 1723 – 1742 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , & Guimond , A. B. ( 2010 ). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity . Developmental Psychology, 46 , 636 – 650 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , & Updegraff , K. A. ( 2007 ). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms . Journal of Adolescence, 30 , 549 – 567 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Updegraff , K. A. , & Gonzales-Backen , M. A. ( 2011 ). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 , 140 – 157 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Yazedjian , A. , & Bacama-Gomez , M. Y. ( 2004 ). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Ericksonian and social identity perspective . Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 28 , 16 – 50 . Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Zeiders , K. H. , & Updegraff , K. A. ( 2013 ). Family ethnic socialization and ethnic identity: A family-driven, youth-driven, or reciprocal process? Journal of Family Psychology, 27 ( 1 ), 137 – 146 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Vargas , E. D. , Sanchez , G. R. , & Valdez , J. A. ( 2017 ). Immigration policies and group identity: How immigration laws affect linked fate among U.S. Latino populations . Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 2 , 35 – 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © 2018 National Association of Social Workers This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Work Oxford University Press

Latino Immigrant Family Socialization Scale: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Ethnic–Racial Socialization Measurement

Social Work , Volume Advance Article (3) – Apr 26, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/latino-immigrant-family-socialization-scale-development-and-validation-UxHFpYngol
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 National Association of Social Workers
ISSN
0037-8046
eISSN
1545-6846
D.O.I.
10.1093/sw/swy016
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The study describes multiple steps taken to develop and test the Latino Immigrant Family Socialization (LIFS) scale. Scale items were developed based on qualitative interviews, and feedback on the items was solicited from content experts including an academic, practitioner, and a group of promotoras (or lay health workers). The scale was completed by 300 Latino immigrant parents in the state of Arizona. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a six-factor model. The six factors were cultural socialization, adapt, advocate, value diversity, promote mistrust, and educate about nativity and documentation. Follow-up studies are needed to continue the measurement validation process and assess how strategies are used in conjunction with each other, the application of the six strategies across different policy contexts, and how the ethnic–racial socialization process supports children’s health and well-being. The current sociopolitical immigration climate exposes Latino immigrant families and their children to increased levels of discrimination and hostility (Szkupinski Quiroga, Medina, & Glick, 2014; Vargas, Sanchez, & Valdez, 2017). In the United States, one in four children (18 million) live in immigrant families (Migration Policy Institute, 2015), and an estimated 5.1 million live in families with at least one undocumented parent (Capps, Fix, & Zong, 2016). Thus, many children are likely to feel the effects of the current national anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiments. As primary caregivers, parents play a critical role in how children process issues related to race or ethnicity and discrimination. There has been a growing interest in the area of ethnic–racial socialization (ERS) among ethnic families, with a focus on resilience. ERS, or communication to children about ethnicity and race, is a significant component of parenting, particularly among ethnic families (Hughes et al., 2006). Evidence suggests that ERS prepares children to process, cope, and adapt to challenges related to being a member of a particular ethnic or racial group. Through the ERS process parents convey adaptive and protective messages and practices to promote positive racial or ethnic identity and combat racism and discrimination (Neblett, Smalls, Ford, Nguyên, & Sellers, 2009). Although multiple dimensions to the ERS process have been identified (Hughes et al., 2006; Ayón, 2016), most studies with Latino families have focused on cultural socialization or building ethnic pride and ties to the familial culture of origin. Minimal efforts have been made to understand or measure additional dimensions of the ERS process among Latino families. This study addresses this gap in the literature by presenting the development and initial validation for a multidimensional measure of ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The proposed measure is qualitatively informed by the lived experiences of Latino immigrant families; participatory methods were used to support the validation process. ERS ERS refers to “the transmission of parents’ world views about race and ethnicity to children by way of subtle, overt, deliberate, and unintended mechanisms” (Hughes, 2003, p. 15). Children learn attitudes, values, and behaviors from their parents that help them navigate racial or ethnic tension and adapt to the environments where they live (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010). Based on a review of the literature, Hughes and colleagues (2006) identified four dimensions of ERS: (1) Cultural socialization involves parents’ efforts to build ethnic pride by teaching their children about their heritage and culture, practicing the Spanish language, and eating traditional foods (Quintana & Vera, 1999; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995, 2001). (2) Preparation for bias is the practice of increasing children’s awareness of discrimination and developing children’s coping skills. (3) Promotion of mistrust emphasizes wariness and caution with respect to children’s interactions with members of other ethnic or racial groups. (4) Egalitarianism involves parental messaging that encourage children to value individual qualities over ethnic or racial group membership and thrive in mainstream settings, avoid discussion about race or ethnicity, and promote a color-blind perspective (Hughes et al., 2006). Research on the ERS process has been predominately focused on cultural socialization and preparation for bias with African American families (Hughes et al., 2006). Of the 44 articles reviewed by Hughes et al. (2006), only seven involved a Latino sample—all of them examined cultural socialization and only three preparation for bias. Latino Families and ERS In the last decade, an increasing number of studies have examined ERS among Latino families and youths; most of these studies have focused on cultural socialization, with fewer addressing preparation for bias and promoting mistrust. The most common measures of cultural socialization include the Familial Ethnic Socialization instrument (Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bacama-Gomez, 2004), the Ethnic Socialization Scale (Bernal & Knight, 1993), and the Cultural Socialization of Latino Children scale (Calzada, Huang, Anicama, Fernandez, & Brotman, 2012). The latter measures assess the degree to which parents and families socialize children with respect to Mexican or Latino culture; Calzada et al.’s (2012) measure specifically addresses manifestations of respeto, a Latino cultural value. A majority of the research on cultural socialization has examined the relationship between cultural socialization and ethnic identity development among Latino adolescents. Findings suggest that cultural socialization is associated with future levels of ethnic identity exploration, resolution, and affirmation (Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010). Ethnic identity has been found to protect children from engaging in risky behavior (Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales-Backen, 2011) and buffer the effects of discrimination (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). Similarly, in a prospective longitudinal study, Berkel and colleagues (2010) found that strong cultural values serve to reduce risk; that is, youths who received cultural socialization messages endorsed Mexican values more and in turn experienced fewer mental health symptoms and more academic self-efficacy over time. Although one of the functions of ERS is to enable youths to recognize and cope with discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006), few studies have examined preparation for bias or promoting mistrust among Latino families. Grindal and Nieri (2015, 2016) sought to examine how ERS messaging is related to academic performance and substance use. They adapted items from two previously validated measures to assess three dimensions of ERS: cultural socialization, promotion of mistrust, and preparation for bias. Findings indicate that the relationship between ethnic identity and academic performance was contingent on socialization messages stressing mistrust; that is, youths who were encouraged to not interact with those belonging to other ethnic groups reported lower academic performance (Grindal & Nieri, 2015). In regard to substance use, cultural socialization was associated with lower use of substances whereas promoting mistrust was associated with greater substance use (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). In addition, socialization messages were significantly correlated with peer substance use; cultural socialization serves to protect youths as they are less likely to be exposed to peer substance use social learning, whereas youths who received messages promoting mistrust of other ethnic groups are more likely to be exposed to peer substance use. In a multiethnic study on preparation for bias, Fisher, Wallace, and Fenton (2000) found that caregiver preparation for bias messaging (that is, reinforcing expectations for racism as opposed to cultural socialization) was significantly associated with youth reports of educational, institutional, and peer discrimination. The researchers suggest further exploration into preparation for bias as it “may not mitigate, and may even exacerbate, the negative impact of discrimination on adolescent social and emotional development” (p. 691). Collectively, the findings of the three most frequently assessed ERS strategies reveal the complex role that ERS plays in promoting Latino children’s well-being. These findings provide evidence for the need to “decompose ethnic-racial socialization by dimension” (Grindal & Nieri, 2016, p. 19) to understand the effects of each dimension on youths’ behavior and psychosocial functioning. Current Study Several scholars have stressed the limitations of existing ERS measures. In some instances, measures collapse multiple ERS dimensions into one score, making it difficult to examine how each specific dimension of ERS is related to outcomes (Neblett et al., 2009). Some measures are focused on attitudes about ERS as opposed to messaging that is used to convey strategies (Neblett et al., 2009). Specific to preparation for bias messaging, the purpose is to alert youths about the presence of prejudice and discrimination and help them to develop coping strategies; however, existing measures do not differentiate between various forms of coping that may be transmitted through this process (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). In addition, fewer efforts have been made to determine whether additional ERS strategies are used across ethnic or racial groups and the role that political climate may play on the type of ERS messaging that is used. In regard to the experiences of Latino families, immigration policy and anti-immigrant rhetoric influence these conversations, and documentation status adds another layer to the ERS process (Ayón, 2016). The present study begins to address some of the limitations to existing ERS measures by proposing a multidimensional ERS measure that is qualitatively grounded in the experiences of Latino immigrant families. Expanding on the work of Hughes and colleagues, Ayón (2016) developed a multidimensional model of ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The model examines six factors: (1) cultural socialization and (2) promoting distrust; the model expands previous research by addressing active and avoidant coping strategies used within preparation for bias—(3) adapt and (4) advocate—; additional strategies include (5) valuing diversity (a counter to promoting mistrust) and (6) educating youths about nativity and documentation status. The purpose of the current study is to present a descriptive account of the development and initial validation of an ERS measure based on the model introduced by Ayón (2016). The study was informed by participatory methods to engage community members in the development of the measure. It was hypothesized that the new measure would reflect six previously listed ERS strategies or factors and would exhibit high levels of validity and reliability. The ability to measure multiple dimensions of the ERS process among Latino families will facilitate an assessment of strategies that best builds children’s capacity to thrive within their environments and protect children’s mental health and overall well-being. Method Measurement Development and Design This study is part of a large mixed-methods study on the ERS process among Latino immigrant families in Arizona. One of the aims of the study was to qualitatively learn from Latino immigrant parents about how they talk to children about race, immigration, discrimination, and inequality within a restrictive political climate (Ayón, 2016). A model based on the qualitative findings revealed that parents used six different strategies. The purpose of the present study was to take the first step toward validating a measure based on this qualitatively driven ERS model for Latino immigrant families. The present study offers a detailed narrative on the process used to develop the instrument and the initial validation results. Three steps were taken to develop and design the measure: (1) Items were developed based on in-depth interviews with immigrant Latino parents, (2) potential items were reviewed by two experts on Latino family issues, and (3) potential items were reviewed by a group of promotoras (that is, lay health workers) who are Latino immigrant parents and active in their community. In-depth qualitative interviews were used to generate the items. Based on the interviews a framework was developed that reflects six strategies used by parents following an experience with discrimination. The six strategies were (1) educate about nativity and documentation status, (2) adapt or expect discrimination, (3) reinforce negative stereotypes, (4) advocate, (5) build ethnic pride, and (6) value diversity. Discrimination, the critical incident facing the family, initiated parent–child communication or parent action on behalf of their child that represented the ERS strategies used by parents. In developing the items for the measure, it was decided to omit items for the “comforting children” theme, as it was determined to be more aligned with parenting style. For instance, Domenech Rodríguez, Donovick, and Crowley (2009) characterized Latino immigrant parents as relying on protective parenting strategies, which are reflected by high control and warmth and low autonomy granting. That is, Latino parents have been found to use a combination of high monitoring as well as supportive behavior, strong communication, and low autonomy granting. These protective strategies are hypothesized to help children thrive within challenging environments. As it relates to our findings, parents comfort their children as a means to protect them and ensure their safety. Refer to Ayón (2016) for an overview of the analysis and detailed description of the model. Based on the qualitative narratives for each ERS strategy, five to seven items were written per strategy. The items were generated in Spanish and translated for the purpose of publication and dissemination. Two bilingual and bicultural research assistants translated the items, and the author also reviewed translations. In creating the items, the goal was to retain as much of the parents’ actual language and meaning as possible and to ensure that the items were widely understandable and applicable (Dumka, Gonzalez, Wood, & Fromoso, 1998). Next, the items were reviewed by experts in the field and a group of Latina mothers who were promotoras. Two subject matter experts, one academic and one practitioner, appraised the items for relevance and content. Subsequently, several items were modified to increase clarity and additional items were created as needed (that is, if fewer than five items had been originally created). Promotoras provided feedback through a focus group (N = 7). The promotoras were all parents who were active in their local community and had children within the target age frame (that is, 7-12). Promotoras completed the measure and were asked to consider the following: (a) whether the measure was easy to read and understand, (b) whether any items were ambiguous or unclear, and (c) whether the items reflected their understanding of the model and their experience (face validity). To solicit promotoras’ feedback, a series of questions were used, including “Are there any items you would change?” and “Is there anything missing from the questionnaire that is important to you?” and “Do you have any additional feedback?” The promotoras stated that the items reflected their experiences well, had general suggestion to clarify items, and specifically suggested to reframe items that had been reverse coded. Following the changes, the measure included 35 items to be considered for the Latino Immigrant Family Socialization (LIFS) scale. Measures LIFS includes 35 original items that reflect parents’ interactions with their children following an experience with a race-based issue, discrimination, or inequality. The proposed measure includes items that reflect six subscales or six ERS strategies used by Latino immigrant families. The following are sample items for each of the subscales: (1) educate about nativity and documentation status: “Talk to child about where he/she was born” and “Talk to child about injustices due to immigration status”; (2) adapt or expect discrimination: “Tell child that discrimination is normal” and “Encourage the child to learn to live with discrimination”; (3) promoting mistrust: “Advise the child to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups”; (4) advocate: “Tell the child to seek help when he/she is discriminated” and “Tell the child to stand up for who he/she is and what he/she believes in”; (5) build ethnic pride: “Talk to the child about his/her roots or heritage” and “Talk to the child about the contribution of Mexicans/Latinos to the United States (for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy)”; and (6) value diversity: “Talk to the child about differences in cultures” and “Encourage the child to put himself/herself in the place of others when he/she is made to feel less than others.” Responses were solicited on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. The Attitudinal Familism Scale is an 18-item measure that reflects four main components of familismo: the family comes before the individual, familial interconnectedness, familial reciprocity in times of need, and familial honor (Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). The scale was scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include the following: “A person should always be expected to defend his/her family’s honor no matter what the cost” and “A person should respect his or her older brothers and sisters regardless of their differences in views.” The reliability score for this sample was good (α = .892). Recruitment Procedures and Participants A purposive sampling strategy was used based on the following eligibility criteria. Parents who were immigrants from a Latin American country and who had children between the ages of seven and 12 were eligible to participate in the study. The seven-to-12 age frame for children was used as it is a critical period when children begin to understand differences based on race and thus are more likely to engage parents in such discussions (Hughes, 2003). Following institutional review board approval, participants were recruited through four community-based agencies. Recruitment sites primarily serve Latino families and provide a range of programs. Brief presentations were used to describe the study’s purpose, eligibility criteria, rights as participants, and procedures. Parents who were interested in participating in the study completed a recruitment form with their names, contact information, and best availability days and times (used when scheduling). Interviews were scheduled with the goal of eliminating as many barriers as possible. For instance, interviews were completed at a time that fit best for the respondents’ schedules (including weekends) and in their homes or mutually agreed location. The interviewers read the items to participants and recorded their responses. This approach was used to eliminate any literacy barriers. The structured interviews ranged in duration from 60 to 75 minutes. All interviews were completed in Spanish. Participants received a $30 remuneration to partially compensate them for their time. Analyses The analysis involved four steps. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was completed on the 35 items using Mplus statistical software (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) with GEOMIN oblique rotation. Preliminary descriptive analyses on the 35 items revealed that some of the items were skewed and kurtotic. Maximum likelihood restricted estimation was used as it offers maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and chi-square test statistics that are more robust to nonnormality). EFA was used to reduce the number of items. Factor loadings for each item were examined (for example, <.40). The second step involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA was completed on remaining items. The following empirically supported indices were used to assess model fit: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90 percent confidence interval (CI). For the CFI and TLI, values above .90 are considered acceptable; and the RMSEA values should be <.05, although values below .08 are also considered reasonable (Browne & Cudeck, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999). When model fit was deemed unacceptable, the factor loadings were reviewed. The decision to remove an item was made when factor loadings were below .40 to increase interpretability; when items were deemed to theoretically measure same construct, the item with a higher factor loading was retained. As items were identified and removed, EFAs were repeated with the reduced number of items. The final CFA model was run with the reduced number of items. Third, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency for each subscale. Fourth, correlations between the LIFS subscales, familismo scores, and years in the United States were conducted to examine the validity of the measure. Familismo is a Latino cultural value that honors family unity, loyalty, and support for family members (Calzada, Tamis-LeMonda, & Yoshikawa, 2013). Familismo has been found to be protective of the child-rearing process and offer immigrants emotional, financial, and instrumental support (Calzada et al., 2013). In accordance with these findings, it was expected that some of the LIFS subscales would be positively related to familismo whereas others would not. In addition, it was expected that with increased years in the United States parents would engage in less frequent ERS practices. That is, as parents integrate into the U.S. culture, some of the race- or ethnicity-related issues that arise may be interpreted as “normal” and thus parents would engage in ERS practices less frequently. This validity analysis provides an index of how the ERS process is adapted by parents based on their ties to their culture of origin (familismo) and their integration process (years in the United States). Results Descriptive Statistics Three hundred parents participated in the study. Eighty-three (n = 248) percent of the participants were mothers, 17.3 percent (n = 52) were fathers. A majority of the participants were Mexican (94 percent) and married (86 percent). On average, participants were 38 years old (SD = 6.68) and had three children (SD = 1.12). Participants’ education ranged from less than a high school education (57 percent) to high school graduate (17 percent) and some college education to BA (26 percent). Nearly 60 percent of the participants reported family incomes of $25,000 or less. All of the participants were immigrants; the average age at time of migration to the United States was 21 years (SD = 6.79). Participants had resided in the United States on average 15.8 years (SD = 6.422). A majority of the participants reported that they originally migrated to the United States to find good jobs or earn a better income (n = 126; 42 percent) or to provide children with an education or better opportunities (n = 82; 27 percent). Nearly 60 percent of the participants had never returned to their country of origin, and 40 percent reported that at least one of their family members had been deported. EFA The EFA with the original 35 items revealed five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and one with an eigenvalue of .750. However, the fit indices were not initially acceptable. Several items had low factor loadings (<.40) and items loaded on multiple factors. Items were removed one at a time, and EFA was rerun at each step. The final EFA included 27 items with five eigenvalues greater than 1 and one eigenvalue at .750 (CFI = .980, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .43, 95% CI = .038–.049). The sixth factor, with eigenvalues below 1, was retained as the items were theoretically driven. The factor loadings were strong (that is, above .40). CFA The final CFA was completed using the 27 remaining items. The 27 items loaded onto the six proposed factors well (CFI = .920, TLI = .909, RMSEA = .070, 95% CI = .066–.074). Figure 1 includes standardized factor loadings for the six factors for the LIFS scale. Each factor contains between three and five items. In practice, each factor should serve as a subscale with high scores representing greater affirmation of the construct. Descriptive statistics are presented for each item included in the LIFS scale in Table 1. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Note: TC = target child (that is, the child who parents focused on during the interview). Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Factor Loadings for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Note: TC = target child (that is, the child who parents focused on during the interview). Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Items Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Note: TC = target child. Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Items Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Item Number Do You . . .? M SD 1 Tell TC that discrimination is normal 2.05 1.55 2 Encourage TC to learn to live with discrimination 2.10 1.50 3 Tell TC that he or she will be discriminated 2.00 1.44 4 Tell TC to expect that he or she will be treated unfairly 2.20 1.45 5 Tell TC to accept that discrimination or racism will be part of his or her life 2.19 1.47 6 Tell TC to seek help when he or she is discriminated 4.25 1.30 7 Tell TC to stand up for who he or she is and what he or she believes in 4.46 1.10 8 Tell TC that discrimination should not be tolerated 3.83 1.57 9 Tell TC to help others who are treated unfairly 4.21 1.20 10 Talk to TC about his or her roots and heritage 4.35 0.96 11 Talk to TC about the history of Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] or about customs and traditions from Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.84 1.06 12 Talk to TC about your childhood, how it was growing up in Mexico [or parent’s country of origin] 3.58 1.53 13 Talk to TC about the contribution of Mexicans and other Latinos to the United States [for example, contribution in the labor force to sustain the economy] 3.58 1.35 14 Encourage TC to speak Spanish 4.66 0.79 15 Tell TC that we are all humans 4.94 0.30 16 Talk to TC about the value in every person 4.66 0.74 17 Talk to TC about differences in cultures 3.83 1.17 18 Encourage TC to consider how others feel when they are treated unfairly 4.34 0.95 19 Encourage TC to put himself or herself in the place of others when he or she is made to feel less than others 4.38 0.96 20 Advice TC to be careful of people who are members of other racial or ethnic groups 3.18 1.62 21 Advise TC not to trust people from other racial or ethnic groups 2.72 1.71 22 Tell TC that it is better to only play with children who are from his or her same racial or ethnic group 1.41 1.06 23 Talk to TC about where he or she was born 4.15 1.31 24 Talk to TC about differences in rights based on immigration status 3.26 1.49 25 Talk to TC about being an immigrant 3.57 1.37 26 Talk to TC about the meaning of citizenship 3.38 1.51 27 Talk to TC about injustices due to immigrant status 3.61 1.38 Note: TC = target child. Reliability and Validity Analysis Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .707 to .832 (see Table 2). To test the validity of the scale, correlations were conducted between the LIFS subscale scores, familismo, and years in the United States (see Table 3). A significant positive relationship was found between familismo and four LIFS subscales—cultural socialization, educate about nativity and documentation, value diversity, and promote mistrust. This pattern of findings was expected as familismo is rooted in (a) cultural practices (cultural socialization); (b) family unity, which is placed at risk by the current anti-immigrant legislation, thus necessitating conversation about immigration status and nativity; (c) supporting and protecting family members—under the current immigration context, promoting wariness of others may be done as a way to protect family members; and (d) understanding and valuing others, which is consistent with familismo as well as with community orientation within the Latino culture. As expected, significant negative correlations were found between years in the United States and four of the LIFS subscales. That is, with longer duration in the United States, parents engaged less frequently in advocacy, cultural socialization, education about nativity and documentation, and promoting value of diversity strategies. It is possible that years in the United States serves as a proxy to documentation status, thus families who are documented may not experience incidents of discrimination as frequently or may not engage in discussion about immigration issues as they are not always experienced directly. In addition, as families integrate, they may not engage in cultural socialization as frequently. Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for the Subscales Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for the Subscales Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Subscale M SD Number of Items α Adapt 2.16 1.48 5 .832 Advocate 4.18 1.05 4 .825 Cultural socialization 4.12 0.73 5 .716 Educate about nativity and documentation 3.73 1.00 5 .810 Value diversity 4.43 0.59 5 .707 Promote mistrust 2.43 1.20 3 .725 Table 3: Validity Correlations LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 Note: LIFS = Latino Immigrant Family Socialization. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 3: Validity Correlations LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 LIFS Subscale Familismo Years in the United States Adapt .010 –.051 Advocate .081 –.153** Cultural socialization .153** –.176** Educate about nativity and documentation .202*** –.206*** Value diversity .198*** –.219*** Promote mistrust .143* .026 Note: LIFS = Latino Immigrant Family Socialization. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p ≤ .001. Discussion The present study provides initial empirical support for the validity and reliability of the LIFS measure. The measure was designed to assess multiple dimensions of the ERS process for Latino immigrant families. Given the current national restrictive immigration rhetoric and sentiments, it is critical to understand how Latino families are discussing issues of race, discrimination, and inequality with their children. The six factors build on previous ERS models and expand our understanding of the strategies used by Latino families as informed by their lived experiences. The analyses confirmed six interrelated factors—adapt, advocate, cultural socialization, value diversity, promote mistrust, and educate about nativity and documentation. Cultural socialization, measured by five items, is the ERS strategy most frequently studied among Latinos (Hughes et al., 2006). The items in this measure are similar to those seen in the most frequently used cultural socialization instruments (see Bernal & Knight, 1993; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). These items speak to parents’ commitment to transmit their cultural practices and knowledge to their children. The next factor, promoting mistrust, include three items. These items reflect parents’ wariness in their interactions with members of other ethnic groups. In the proposed LIFS measure, preparation for bias is captured by two factors—adapt and advocate. As originally conceptualized, preparation for bias strategies are meant to help children understand that they will be discriminated because of their race or ethnicity and to teach them how to develop coping strategies. A limitation of previous measure of preparation for bias has been that the type of coping strategies parents share with children have not been captured well (Grindal & Nieri, 2016). The factors adapt (five items) and advocate (four items) both prepare children for understanding discrimination and prejudice; however, one supports developing avoidant coping strategies (adapt or ignore discriminatory comments) whereas the other promotes active coping (advocate, let others know you do not like what they are saying, or find an adult for support). The literature on coping among Latino youths reveals conflicting evidence: Basáñez, Warren, Crano, and Unger (2014) found that high perceived intragroup rejection and low levels of active coping were associated with depressive symptoms and that avoidant coping strategies were also related to depressive symptoms. A more nuanced look at coping found that youths’ cultural orientation was associated with the type of coping strategy they used (Brittian, Toomey, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2013). Brittian and colleagues (2013) indicated that distraction coping strategies (that is, engaging in recreational activities) buffered the effects of perceived discrimination on internalizing symptoms among Latino youths with low Anglo orientation, but for youths who were low on Mexican orientation, social support seeking coping buffered the relationship between perceived discrimination and externalizing symptoms. The inclusions of both avoidant and active coping strategies within the measure will facilitate further exploration on which type of coping Latino parents engender in their children and allow for analysis of which type of coping is more protective of children’s well-being. The current immigration political context adds a critical layer to our understanding of how Latino immigrant families engage children in the ERS process. Two factors respond to the immigration political context—educate about nativity and documentation and value diversity. First, educating children about nationality and deportation encompasses five items. These items reflect parent–child communication about nativity, documentation status, rights associated with documentation status, and meaning of citizenship and of being an immigrant. This factor represents a critical dimension of the ERS process for Latino families because when children learn that they, a family member, or peer is undocumented, the threat to their family and community becomes more salient for them as they understand the risk of deportation. Some parents may aim to shield their children from such information to protect their children, and others take a more proactive approach to these discussion (see Philbin & Ayón, 2016). Regardless of parents’ intentions, discussions about these issues often emerge, particularly following an experience with discrimination (for example, hearing “Go back to your country” or “I’m going to call ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to deport your parents”). Assessing how parents approach this issue will allow for further understanding of how such issues affect children’s psychosocial well-being. The final factor, value diversity, includes five items. These items address parents’ efforts to strengthen children’s tolerance and empathy for others and educate their children about the diversity in cultural practices. In response to the restrictive and often hostile environment Latino families encounter, Latino parents aim to teach their children to be respectful of others and to embrace their differences. This dimension of the measure provides an opposing strategy to promoting mistrust. That is, instead of framing differences as negative attributes, items in this factor stress the strengths in differences and similarities across groups such as “we are all humans.” Limitations There are a few limitations to the study. The model from which the measure is drawn is based on interviews with Latino immigrant families in the state of Arizona. Arizona is known for being at the forefront in passing restrictive immigration policies; therefore, the experiences of Latino immigrant families and how they engage in the ERS process may be different compared with those of families who reside in states with a more immigrant integrationist position. The data are informed by families in which the parents are immigrants; thus, additional research is needed to determine if the measure applies to second- and third (or more) generation families who may not be as affected by the immigration political climate. However, the study provides evidence to support the initial validation of a multidimensional ERS measure that is grounded in the lived experiences of Latino immigrant families. Implications for Future Research First, additional steps are needed to support the validation process for the measure. Data should be collected from additional samples to address the sampling limitations. Additional research is needed to understand the combination of strategies used by parents and which strategies support the healthy development of children. For instance, do parents prefer certain strategies over others and use a combination of strategies? And do the types of strategies parents use vary by children’s age? From a resiliency and strengths perspective, greater understanding of the relationship between multiple dimensions of the ERS process and children’s outcomes will support identifying areas where we can intervene to support the health and well-being of Latino families. The ERS process is a bidirectional process (Umaña-Taylor, Zeiders, & Updegraff, 2013); parents play a significant role in the ERS process by supporting their children and building their coping skills, but children’s experiences with issues of race and discrimination, subsequent questions, and understanding and integration of parental advice and modeled behavior also inform the ERS process. Therefore, future studies should assess children’s perspective on the ERS process and ascertain that their experiences are captured by existing measures. References Ayón , C. ( 2016 ). Talking to children about race, inequality, and discrimination: Raising families in an anti-immigrant political environment . Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7 , 449 – 477 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Basáñez , T. , Warren , M. T. , Crano , W. D. , & Unger , J. B. ( 2014 ). Perceptions of intragroup rejection and coping strategies: Malleable factors affecting Hispanic adolescents’ emotional and academic outcomes . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 , 1266 – 1280 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Berkel , C. , Knight , G. P. , Zeiders , K. H. , Tein , J. Y. , Roosa , M. W. , Gonzales , N. A. , & Saenz , D. ( 2010 ). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexican American adolescents: A prospective examination of the benefits of culturally related values . Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20 , 893 – 915 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bernal , M. E. , & Knight , G. P. (Eds.). ( 1993 ). Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities . Albany : State University of New York Press . Brittian , A. S. , Toomey , R. B. , Gonzales , N. A. , & Dumka , L. E. ( 2013 ). Perceived discrimination, coping strategies, and Mexican origin adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Examining the moderating role of gender and cultural orientation . Applied Developmental Science, 17 ( 1 ), 4 – 19 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Browne , M. W. , & Cudeck , R. ( 1989 ). Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance structures . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24 , 445 – 455 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Calzada , E. J. , Huang , K.-Y. , Anicama , C. , Fernandez , Y. , & Brotman , L. M. ( 2012 ). Test of a cultural framework of parenting with Latino families of young children . Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18 , 285 – 296 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Calzada , E. J. , Tamis-LeMonda , C. S. , & Yoshikawa , H. ( 2013 ). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from low-income, urban communities . Journal of Family Issues, 34 , 1696 – 1724 . doi:10.1177/0192513×12460218 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Capps , R. , Fix , M. , & Zong , J. ( 2016 ). A profile of U.S. children with unauthorized immigrant parents. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/profile-us-children-unauthorized-immigrant-parents Domenech Rodríguez , M. M. , Donovick , M. , & Crowley , S. L. ( 2009 ). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observation of “protective parenting” in first-generation Latinos . Family Process, 48 , 195 – 210 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Dumka , L. E. , Gonzalez , N. A. , Wood , J. L. , & Fromoso , D. ( 1998 ). Using qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and preventive interventions: An illustration . American Journal of Community Psychology, 26 , 605 – 637 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fisher , C. B. , Wallace , S. A. , & Fenton , R. E. ( 2000 ). Discrimination distress during adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 , 679 – 695 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grindal , M. , & Nieri , T. ( 2015 ). An examination of ethnic identity and academic performance: Assessing the multidimensional role of parental ethnic–racial socialization among a sample of Latino adolescents . Race and Social Problems, 7 , 242 – 255 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grindal , M. , & Nieri , T. ( 2016 ). The relationship between ethnic-racial socialization and adolescent substance use: An examination of social learning as a causal mechanism . Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 15 ( 1 ), 3 – 24 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hu , L. T. , & Bentler , P. M. ( 1999 ). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Structural Equation Modeling, 6 ( 1 ), 1 – 55 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hughes , D. ( 2003 ). Correlates of African American and Latino parents’ messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization . American Journal of Community Psychology, 31 , 15 – 33 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hughes , D. , Rodriguez , J. , Smith , E. P. , Johnson , D. J. , Stevenson , H. C. , & Spicer , P. ( 2006 ). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study . Developmental Psychology, 42 , 747 – 770 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lugo Steidel , A. G. , & Contreras , J. M. ( 2003 ). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 , 312 – 330 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Migration Policy Institute . ( 2015 ). State immigration data profiles. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/US Muthén , L. K. , & Muthén , B. O. ( 2007 ). Mplus user’s guide (1998-2007) ( 5th ed. ). Los Angeles : Author . Neblett , E. W. , Smalls , C. P. , Ford , K. R. , Nguyên , H. X. , & Sellers , R. M. ( 2009 ). Racial socialization and racial identity: African American parents’ messages about race as precursors to identity . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 , 189 – 203 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Philbin , S. P. , & Ayón , C. ( 2016 ). Luchamos por nuestros hijos: Latino immigrant parents strive to protect their children from the deleterious effects of anti-immigration policies . Children and Youth Services Review, 63 , 123 – 135 . doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.019 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Quintana , S. M. , & Vera , E. M. ( 1999 ). Mexican American children’s ethnic identity, understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic socialization . Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21 , 387 – 404 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Suárez-Orozco , C. , & Suárez-Orozco , M. M. ( 1995 ). Transformation: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Suárez-Orozco , C. , & Suárez-Orozco , M. M. ( 2001 ). Children of immigration . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Szkupinski Quiroga , S. , Medina , D. M. , & Glick , J. ( 2014 ). In the belly of the beast: Effects of anti-immigration policy on Latino community members . American Behavioral Scientist, 58 , 1723 – 1742 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , & Guimond , A. B. ( 2010 ). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity . Developmental Psychology, 46 , 636 – 650 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , & Updegraff , K. A. ( 2007 ). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms . Journal of Adolescence, 30 , 549 – 567 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Updegraff , K. A. , & Gonzales-Backen , M. A. ( 2011 ). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 , 140 – 157 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Yazedjian , A. , & Bacama-Gomez , M. Y. ( 2004 ). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Ericksonian and social identity perspective . Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 28 , 16 – 50 . Umaña-Taylor , A. J. , Zeiders , K. H. , & Updegraff , K. A. ( 2013 ). Family ethnic socialization and ethnic identity: A family-driven, youth-driven, or reciprocal process? Journal of Family Psychology, 27 ( 1 ), 137 – 146 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Vargas , E. D. , Sanchez , G. R. , & Valdez , J. A. ( 2017 ). Immigration policies and group identity: How immigration laws affect linked fate among U.S. Latino populations . Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 2 , 35 – 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © 2018 National Association of Social Workers This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Social WorkOxford University Press

Published: Apr 26, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off