Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappdp

Development and initial validation of the short critical consciousness scale T

(CCS-S)
Luke J. Rapaa, , Candice W. Boldingb, Faiza M. Jamilc
⁎

a
Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Clemson University, Room 409-F, Gantt Circle, Clemson, SC 29634-0723, USA
b
Department of Education and Human Development, Learning Sciences Program, College of Education, Clemson University, 109 Lowry Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0723,
USA
c
Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Clemson University, Room 409-C, Gantt Circle, Clemson, SC 29634-0723, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper reports the development and initial validation of the Short Critical Consciousness Scale (CCS-S),
Critical consciousness which measures critical consciousness via its three component parts: critical reflection, critical motivation, and
Measurement invariance critical action. In Study 1, we identified and extracted four subsets of items from the original Critical
Sociopolitical development Consciousness Scale and from a validated critical motivation measure, creating the 14-item CCS-S while
Scale development
maintaining construct validity and the strong psychometric properties of the original sub-scales. In Study 2, we
completed initial validation of the CCS-S with a larger-scale, independent sample (n = 4901; Mage = 14.69) and
tested measurement invariance of the CCS-S across ethnic-racial, age, and gender groups. Measurement in-
variance was supported for each group. We conclude by considering implications and directions for future
critical consciousness research, including recommendations for the use of the CCS-S in both research and applied
settings.

Introduction
Critical consciousness is a developmental asset that enables in-
dividuals to perceive and challenge societal inequities (Diemer, Rapa,
Voight, & McWhirter, 2016). Grounded in the pedagogical work of
Brazilian educator Freire (1973), critical consciousness was initially
theorized to have two components—reflection and action—that oper-
ated reciprocally through a process Freire (1968/2000) called “praxis,”
or “reflection and action on the world in order to transform it” (p. 51).
Through praxis, individuals and communities experiencing margin-
alization could recognize societal inequities and act to redress them,
thereby moving toward cultural, economic, and social liberation.
Contemporary scholars have built on Freire's theorization of critical
consciousness, suggesting that it comprises three distinct but related
sub-components: (1) critical reflection, which is the critical analysis of
inequitable social conditions; (2) critical motivation (sometimes re-
ferred to as political agency or efficacy), which is the interest and
agency one has to redress such inequities; and (3) critical action, which
is the action taken, individually or collectively, to produce or partici-
pate in activities aimed at creating societal change (Watts, Diemer, &
Voight, 2011). In this tripartite conceptualization of critical con-
sciousness, critical motivation is theorized to mediate critical reflection
and critical action, which themselves work mutually to influence each
other over time (Watts et al., 2011).
Critical consciousness has been posited as an antidote to oppression
(Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999) and is a means by which in-
dividuals or groups navigate structural constraints that limit pathways
to success and self-determination. In today's climate of rising economic
inequality and health disparity, heightened racial tension, and greater
sociopolitical instability, critical consciousness may serve as a protec-
tive factor that engenders greater adaptive development and enhances
well-being, both for individuals and groups experiencing margin-
alization and oppression (Diemer et al., 2016).
Freire conceptualized critical consciousness as a means by which
society might be transformed to be more equitable, with an overarching
aim of liberation for all (Freire, 1968/2000). The construct has been of
interest to applied developmental and psychological researchers since
its inception, and it has garnered attention from researchers and prac-
titioners alike because it and its component parts have been linked to a
number of adaptive outcomes. For example, critical consciousness has
been associated with socio-emotional outcomes such as enhanced
mental health (e.g., Zimmerman, Ramírez-Valles, & Maton, 1999) and
self-esteem (e.g., Godfrey, Santos, & Burson, 2019), academic outcomes
such as school engagement (e.g., Carter Andrews, 2008; O'Connor,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lrapa@clemson.edu (L.J. Rapa), cwboldi@clemson.edu (C.W. Bolding), fjamil@clemson.edu (F.M. Jamil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101164
Received 6 January 2020; Received in revised form 15 June 2020; Accepted 17 June 2020
Available online 24 July 2020
0193-3973/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L.J. Rapa, et al.
1997) and achievement (e.g., Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014;
Seider, Clark, & Graves, 2019), along with other outcomes such as civic
and political engagement (e.g., Diemer & Li, 2011; Diemer & Rapa,
2016), career development (e.g., Diemer & Blustein, 2006; Diemer &
Hsieh, 2008), and occupational attainment (e.g., Rapa, Diemer, &
Bañales, 2018). A recent systematic review of scholarship focused on
critical consciousness reported substantial growth in this area of inquiry
in recent years, examining research focused not only on these outcomes
associated with critical consciousness, but also on interventions de-
signed to foster and measure it (Heberle, Rapa, & Farago, 2020).
Critical consciousness measures
As Heberle et al. (2020) noted, within the strand of research focused
on critical consciousness measurement, a number of quantitative in-
struments designed to assess the construct and its subcomponents have
been developed in recent years. These include a measure of Socio-
political Consciousness (Baker & Brookins, 2014), the Critical Con-
sciousness Scale (CCS; Diemer, Rapa, Park, & Perry, 2017), the Measure
of Adolescent Critical Consciousness (MACC; McWhirter & McWhirter,
2016), the Critical Consciousness Inventory (CCI; Thomas et al., 2014),
the Contemporary Critical Consciousness Measure I (CCCMI; Shin,
Ezeofor, Smith, Welch, & Goodrich, 2016), and the Contemporary
Critical Consciousness Measure II (CCCMII; Shin et al., 2018).
While each of these measures has been designed to assess critical
consciousness quantitatively, the substantive focus of each instrument
has differed slightly—at times rectifying, but also at times exacerbating
issues regarding conceptual clarity (Diemer, McWhirter, Ozer, & Rapa,
2015; Heberle et al., 2020). For example, the CCS (Diemer et al., 2017)
is a 22-item instrument measuring critical reflection and critical action
and used low socioeconomic status youth and/or youth of color for its
validation sample. The critical reflection items included in the CCS
were designed to measure awareness of constraints on opportunity and
endorsement of equitable relations across ethnic-racial, gender, and
socioeconomic lines. Items tapping critical reflection clustered around
two sub-components, critical reflection: perceived inequality and critical
reflection: egalitarianism (Diemer et al., 2017). The scale for critical re-
flection: perceived inequality measures analysis of socioeconomic, ethnic-
racial, and gendered constraints on educational and occupational op-
portunity, while the scale for critical reflection: egalitarianism measures
endorsement of societal equality, or the belief that all groups of people
should be treated as equals in society. The critical action items of the
CCS were designed to assess the degree to which respondents partici-
pated in individual and/or collective action to cultivate societal change,
a construct the authors of the CCS dubbed critical action: sociopolitical
participation.
As another example, in contrast, the MACC (McWhirter &
McWhirter, 2016) is a 10-item instrument measuring the critical mo-
tivation and critical action of Latinx youth. The MACC's critical moti-
vation items were designed to measure commitment and agency to
make a difference in society and correct racial and economic inequal-
ities, while the critical action items were designed to assess youths'
participation in activities oriented around equality and justice. The
other measures have similarly varied in their focus on sub-constructs of
critical consciousness and in their validation samples (Diemer et al.,
2015, 2016).
Limitations of existing critical consciousness measures
The development and use of these measures has enhanced what we
understand about critical consciousness and its role in shaping adaptive
outcomes for youth. However, one limitation manifesting across all
available instruments designed explicitly to measure critical con-
sciousness—including the most commonly cited scale, the CCS—is that
each fails to incorporate all of its sub-components. That is, none of the
existing measures includes all three dimensions: critical reflection,
2
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164
critical motivation, and critical action (Diemer et al., 2015; Seider, El-
Amin, & Kelly, 2020). A refined measure incorporating all of these di-
mensions is needed, both in order to better support the assessment of
critical consciousness from a holistic perspective and to better align
with contemporary theory (e.g., Watts et al., 2011). What is more, a
measure that captures all three dimensions is needed to support inquiry
targeting more nuanced understanding of the pathways of critical
consciousness development and a more complete awareness of the in-
terrelations between and among the reflection, motivation, and action
dimensions (Heberle et al., 2020). The lack of a comprehensive measure
does not invalidate previous scholarship in this area, which has relied
primarily on proxy or partial measures. Yet, our current understanding
of the precursors of and mechanisms by which critical consciousness
develops and operates is hampered by the use of measures that capture
only some aspects of critical consciousness.
Beyond this, many researchers and practitioners interested in youth
development are invested in assessing critical consciousness in order to
further examine associations between it and the many constructs to
which it relates. Yet, when identifying instruments for research or ap-
plied purposes, decision-makers often face constraints and must make
practical considerations about what can be included, at least in terms of
the number of items on a given survey—for example, due to time
limitations or to competing demands for item allocation when mea-
suring constructs of interest. A measure that incorporates all compo-
nents of critical consciousness, if also streamlined, would be useful to
anyone interested in assessing the construct—but especially to those for
whom a longer consolidated instrument would be cumbersome. A more
parsimonious scale that includes all dimensions of critical conscious-
ness would allow researchers and practitioners to measure the construct
more completely and efficiently, thus enabling assessment to proceed
more readily and affording greater opportunity to measure it along with
other constructs—either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, over time.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, researchers have not
yet adequately tested the psychometric properties of existing measures
of critical consciousness so as to establish measurement invariance
across various groups, despite the relative interest in assessing it across
ethnic-racial, gender, and class lines or across developmental periods
(Diemer et al., 2015; Godfrey & Burson, 2018; see Singh, Javdani,
Berezin, & Sichel, 2020 as one exception). Measurement invariance
testing examines the degree to which an instrument and its items
measure a construct uniformly across respondents from various groups
(e.g., groups with different sociodemographic characteristics, groups
responding via different data collection methods, etc.). The establish-
ment of measurement invariance is a requisite step if substantive
comparisons across groups—for example, evaluation of latent mean
differences or examination of differences in regression coefficients—are
to be made (Kline, 2016; Schmitt & Kulijanin, 2008). If measurement
invariance is not established, then observed differences may be the
result of a measure operating differently across groups as opposed to
being reflective of real differences between groups. Thus, in the absence
of measurement invariance, conclusions drawn about group differences
may be unsubstantiated or inappropriate—a point we return to within
the discussion section below.
In the context of critical consciousness research, it is important to
establish invariance as a means to verify that an instrument is mea-
suring the underlying sub-constructs similarly across groups or, more
particularly, to ensure that systematic measurement bias is not in-
troduced as a result of group membership (Schmitt & Kulijanin, 2008).
Indeed, without establishing this invariance, it could be that any ob-
served score differences are artifacts of measurement error as opposed
to being reflective of real group differences.
Individuals experience varied racialized, gendered, and socio-con-
textual environments, and barriers within those environments uniquely
shape development and adaptive functioning (García Coll et al., 1996).
Similarly, individuals experience distinct forms of marginalization and
oppression based on their identification with certain social groups
L.J. Rapa, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164

(Causadias & Umaña-Taylor, 2018), which in turn differentially shape strong psychometric properties. The original 22-item CCS was com-
the development of critical consciousness (Diemer et al., 2016). For posed of 13 items measuring critical reflection, with eight items as-
example, the experiences of Black boys are distinct from Black girls, due sessing perceived inequality and five items assessing egalitarianism as sub-
at least in part to inequities manifesting because of the racialized and dimensions of critical reflection. The CCS contained nine items mea-
gendered marginalization faced by girls and women of color (e.g., suring critical action. The original critical motivation measure included
Combahee River Collective, 1977/2014; Crenshaw, 1989). As a result 10 items. See the Online Supplement Materials, Tables S.1and S.2, for a
of individuals' unique experiences with marginalization, their percep- complete listing of the original CCS and critical motivation items as
tions about, motivation to change, and actions taken to redress in- well as for those included in the CCS-S.
equities may differ. Notwithstanding, and while measurement equiva-
lence would still need to be verified for other samples to whom the Method
instrument is administered, establishing measurement invariance in
this study serves as an important first step in extending the general- Participants
izability of the measure and substantiates the suitability of its use across
various populations. The participants in Study 1 were students attending a number of
high schools in the Midwestern region of the United States when the
The present research data were collected. Participants self-identified predominantly as girls
(56.9%) and predominantly as Black or African American (55.3%).
This paper reports the development and initial validation of the Smaller proportions of the sample identified as White (18.8%), Two or
Short Critical Consciousness Scale (CCS-S). As noted, the original CCS More Races (16.5%), Hispanic or Latinx (5.8%), or as Asian or Pacific
(Diemer et al., 2017) was a 22-item instrument measuring the critical Islander (2.4%), Other (0.6%), or as American Indian or Alaskan Native
reflection and critical action sub-components of CC. The validated CCS (0.5%). The average age of participants was 16.09. Participant demo-
did not include critical motivation (see Diemer et al., 2015; Diemer graphics are summarized in Table 1.
et al., 2017), although subsequent scholarship established a 10-item
critical motivation scale (Rapa, Diemer, & Roseth, 2020) drawing on Procedure
items developed for the initial CCS data collection. The critical moti-
vation scale was designed to measure beliefs about the importance of The original CCS items were administered between 2011 and 2017
correcting societal inequity and responsibility to change perceived in- to participants who had been recruited into one of three studies ex-
equalities. This operationalization of critical motivation reflects a slight amining youth critical consciousness. Data were collected both in
shift from some literature in this area that has focused more on one's person and through online survey, and data from across the three stu-
efficacy beliefs about being able to promote change (e.g., Diemer & dies were pooled for analysis in Study 1. To select items for inclusion in
Rapa, 2016), instead targeting one's interest in and perceptions about the CCS-S, data were assessed to identify items within each sub-scale
the importance of doing so (for further discussion, see Heberle et al., that had high item-item correlations, relative to other items in the sub-
2020; Watts et al., 2011). While utilized in prior research (Rapa et al., scale, and high item-scale correlations (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, &
2020), the critical motivation scale has not been administered with a Lucas, 2011). We also evaluated the substantive content of items as
larger-scale diverse sample. Thus, the often-used CCS does not yet in- well, in order to maximize the potential that the extracted items would
corporate each sub-component of critical consciousness. As noted, maintain the content and construct validity of each respective critical
neither does any other validated measure of critical consciousness in- consciousness sub-scale (Trzesniewski et al., 2011). For each stream-
clude all of its sub-components. Through this research, we set out to lined sub-scale, we then assessed the internal consistency and calcu-
create a more efficient measure of critical consciousness, both stream- lated mean interitem correlations (MICs, a reliability statistic unbiased
lining the original CCS and simultaneously incorporating critical mo- by the number of items in a scale; Clark & Watson, 1995) in order to
tivation into the same instrument. After developing and validating the confirm if the strong psychometric properties of the original sub-scales
CCS-S, we also aimed to test the measurement invariance of the mea- could be maintained when using the reduced item sets. Finally, we
surement model of the CCS-S across ethnic-racial, age, and gender completed a confirmatory factor analysis to test the measurement
groups. model and assess model fit. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried
In Study 1, we identified and extracted four subsets of items from out in Mplus version 8.3 and we used the MLR estimator to provide
the original CCS and critical motivation measures to create a 14-item maximum likelihood parameter estimates robust to non-normality
CCS-S. We strove to ensure that the items in the CCS-S would not only (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017).
be parallel to the original sub-scales—that is, that content and construct
validity would be maintained—but also that the new streamlined sub- Table 1
scales would demonstrate similarly strong psychometric properties in Sample description: study 1.
terms of the measurement of each respective latent construct. Building Demographic characteristics % Missingness n Valid %
on Study 1, in Study 2 we carried out analyses to demonstrate initial
validation of the CCS-S using a new, large-scale sample that was in- Ethnic-Racial Identification 4.4
dependent from that used in Study 1. We then assessed measurement American Indian or Alaskan Native 3 0.5
Asian or Pacific Islander 16 2.4
equivalence of the measurement model of the CCS-S, testing invariance
Black or African American 346 55.3
of the measurement of critical consciousness across respondents, in- Hispanic or Latinx 36 5.8
cluding ethnic-racial, age, and gender identity groups. White 118 18.8
Two or More Races 103 16.5
Other 4 0.6
Study 1: Development of the CCS-S
Grade Level 10.7
Ninth Grade 129 22.0
To identify items for the initial development of the CCS-S, we drew Tenth Grade 187 31.9
from existing survey data that was combined from three prior admin- Eleventh Grade 74 12.6
istrations of the CCS (n = 655) and one prior administration of the Twelfth Grade 195 33.3
Gender Identity 2.0
critical motivation scale (n = 95). As noted, our aim in Study 1 was to
Female 365 56.9
extract items for inclusion in the CCS-S that would be conceptually and Male 277 43.1
substantively parallel to the original sub-scales while maintaining their

3
L.J. Rapa, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164

Table 2
Scale Reliabilities: Original 22-item CCS and 14-item CCS-S.
22-item CCS & CM Scales 14-item CCS-S

Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's alpha MIC

Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality 0.89 (8 items) 0.84 (3 items) 0.63

Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism 0.76 (5 items) 0.82 (3 items) 0.61
Critical Motivation 0.77 (10 items) 0.79 (4 items) 0.51
Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation 0.87 (9 items) 0.80 (4 items) 0.50

Note. CCS = Critical Consciousness Scale; CCS-S = Short Critical Consciousness Scale; CM = Critical Motivation Scale; MIC = mean interitem correlation.

Results Study 2: Initial validation of the CCS-S

Based on our preliminary assessment of item-level characteristics of
the original items within each sub-scale, we identified 14 items for
inclusion in the CCS-S. Specifically, three items each were extracted for
critical reflection: perceived inequality and critical reflection: egalitarianism,
while four items each were extracted for critical motivation and critical
action: sociopolitical participation (see Tables S.1 and S.2).
Subscale internal consistencies and reliabilities. The internal con-
sistencies for the CCS-S sub-scales were adequate to good (see Table 2).
Cronbach's alpha estimates ranged from 0.79 to 0.84, comparable to the
reliabilities reported in Diemer et al.'s (2017) CCS validation study and
notable given that alpha is biased by the number of items in a scale
(DeVellis, 2003; Streiner, 2003). MICs for the CCS-S sub-scales ranged
from 0.50 to 0.63.
Confirmatory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis
carried out to assess the measurement model of the 14-item CCS-S de-
monstrated good model fit (χ2 (71) = 166.51, p < .001;
RMSEA = 0.047 (90% CI = [0.038, 0.057]); CFI = 0.947;
TLI = 0.932; SRMR = 0.075). All items loaded significantly and as
expected onto their respective latent constructs, as reported in Table 3.
The results of Study 1, which entailed the identification of items for
inclusion in the CCS-S, suggested that critical consciousness could be
reliably measured in terms of its component parts—critical reflection,
critical motivation, and critical action—using a parsimonious 14-item
instrument. Through Study 1, we developed a scale that reduced 32
items to 14 while maintaining content and construct validity and the
strong psychometric properties of the original CCS and critical moti-
vation measures.
After developing the 14-item CCS-S in Study 1, we set out to com-
plete analyses to demonstrate initial validation the instrument with a
new, larger-scale sample independent from the sample used in Study 1.
We also aimed to test the measurement equivalence of the measurement
model of the CCS-S among respondents, assessing invariance in the
measurement of critical consciousness across ethnic-racial, age, and
gender identity groups.
Method
Participants
The participants in Study 2 were students attending 15 public ele-
mentary, middle, and high schools in the Southeastern region of the
United States (n = 4901). Eleven of the 15 schools from which parti-
cipants were drawn had 100% of students designated to receive free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL), while the poverty index of the schools
averaged 90.39, ranging from 71.14 to 98.87. Like FRPL, the poverty
index—defined by the percentage of students within a school qualifying
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, or identified as a foster child, homeless
or migrant—serves as a proxy for the socioeconomic status of the par-
ticipants and is an indicator of the likely lower-SES sociodemographic
composition of the study sample in terms of social class (see Diemer,
Mistry, Wadsworth, López, & Reimers, 2012). Participants self-identi-
fied predominantly as girls (51.8%) and predominantly as Black or
African American (41.9%). Smaller proportions of the sample identified
as White (31.1%), Hispanic or Latinx (16.4%), Two or More Races

Table 3
Measurement model for CCS-S (Study 1): item means and factor loadings by latent variable.
Latent variable and indicators Item mean Standardized estimate

Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality

(1) Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get ahead 3.20 0.85⁎⁎⁎
(2) Women have fewer chances to get ahead 2.66 0.75⁎⁎⁎
(3) Poor people have fewer chances to get ahead 3.24 0.78⁎⁎⁎

Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism

(1) It would be good if groups could be equal 5.15 0.66⁎⁎⁎
(2) All groups should be given an equal chance in life 5.34 0.88⁎⁎⁎
(3) We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally 5.12 0.82⁎⁎⁎

Critical Motivation
(1) It is important to correct social and economic inequality 5.14 0.73⁎⁎⁎
(2) It is important to confront someone who says something you think is racist or prejudiced 5.03 0.67⁎⁎⁎
(3) It is my responsibility to get involved and make things better for society 5.02 0.77⁎⁎⁎
(4) People like me should participate in the political activity and decision making of our country 4.51 0.59⁎⁎⁎

Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation

In the last year, how often have you:
(1) Participated in a civil rights group or organization 1.45 0.74⁎⁎⁎
(2) Participated in a political party, club, or organization 1.66 0.65⁎⁎⁎
(3) Contacted a public official by phone, mail, or email to tell him or her how you felt about a particular social or political issue 1.49 0.67⁎⁎⁎
(4) Joined in a protest march, political demonstrations, or political meeting 1.46 0.75⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

4
L.J. Rapa, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164

Table 4 The MLR estimator was utilized to provide maximum likelihood para-
Sample description: study 2. meter estimates robust to non-normality (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-
Demographic Characteristics % Missingness n Valid % 2017).
Grouping variables. Three separate measurement invariance tests
Ethnic-Racial Identification 3.8 were carried out, one for each sociodemographic grouping variable:
American Indian or Alaskan Native 58 1.2
ethnic-racial identification, age (using grade level as a proxy), and
Asian or Pacific Islander 59 1.2
Black or African American 1975 41.9
gender.
Hispanic or Latinx 773 16.4 Ethnic-racial identification. Study participants self-reported their
White 1465 31.1 ethnic-racial identification (cf. Rivas-Drake et al., 2014) across seven
Two or More Races 315 6.7 ethnic-racial groups, including: American Indian or Alaskan Native,
Other 68 1.4
Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx,
Grade Level 4.0
Fourth Grade 481 10.2 White, Two or More Races, and Other. Only four ethnic-racial groups
Fifth Grade 438 9.3 had sub-sample sizes sufficient for analysis within a structural equation
Sixth Grade 404 8.6 modeling framework (Kline, 2016; see also Table 4). Thus, only these
Seventh Grade 507 10.8
groups were included in measurement invariance testing: Black or
Eighth Grade 409 8.7
Ninth Grade 865 18.4
African American (n = 1975), Hispanic or Latinx (n = 773), White
Tenth Grade 648 13.8 (n = 1465), and Two or More Races (n = 315).
Eleventh Grade 587 12.5 Grade level. Study participants self-reported their grade level in
Twelfth Grade 368 7.8 school, identifying as a student in fourth grade through twelfth grade
Gender Identity 5.1
(see Table 4). We tested for measurement equivalence across these nine
Female 2410 51.8
Male 2206 47.4 grade level groups, using grade level as a proxy for age (cf. Syvertsen,
Other (e.g., non-binary) 35 0.8 Scales, & Toomey, 2019). The sample size by grade level was as follows:
fourth grade (n = 481), fifth grade (n = 438), sixth grade (n = 404),
seventh grade (n = 507), eighth grade (n = 409), ninth grade
(6.7%), Other (1.4%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (1.2%), or (n = 865), tenth grade (n = 648), eleventh grade (n = 587), and
Asian or Pacific Islander (1.2%). The average age of participants was twelfth grade (n = 368).
14.69. Participant demographics are summarized in Table 4. Gender. Study participants self-reported their gender identity status
as either female, male, or other (e.g., non-binary). Given the small
Procedure proportion of the study sample who identified as other (n = 35), only
those who identified as girls (n = 2410) or boys (n = 2206) were in-
The CCS-S was administered in Spring 2019, as part of an ongoing cluded in measurement invariance testing (see Table 4).
project focused on equity and diversity in education. Following the
approved human subjects research protocol for our study, data were
collected from assenting students via census administration of an online Results
survey, which was completed during school hours at a time mutually
agreed upon by the researchers and school administrators. To complete Sub-scale internal consistencies and reliabilities. The internal
initial validation of the CCS-S, we first assessed the internal consistency consistencies for the CCS-S sub-scales were adequate to good, with
of the CCS-S sub-scales and calculated MICs for each set of items in the Cronbach's alpha estimates ranging from 0.77 to 0.87 (see Table 5).
CCS-S. We then completed a confirmatory factor analysis to test the These reliabilities were comparable both to those reported in the ori-
measurement model and assess model fit of the CCS-S. ginal CCS (Diemer et al., 2017) and critical motivation (Rapa et al.,
Then, after conducting the confirmatory factor analysis, we sought 2020) validation studies as well as to those reported in Study 1, above.
to test measurement invariance across participants in terms of ethnic- MICs for the CCS-S sub-scales ranged from 0.46 to 0.68.
racial, age, and gender identity groups. To do this, we carried out a Confirmatory factor analysis. As with Study 1, the confirmatory
series of sequential tests to determine if (1) configural, (2) metric, and factor analysis we carried out to assess the measurement model of the
(3) scalar invariance were evident, with scalar invariance being re- 14-item CCS-S demonstrated good model fit (χ2 (71) = 632.72,
quired to support the interpretation of differences in critical con- p < .001; RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI = [0.039, 0.045]); CFI = 0.970;
sciousness across groups (Kline, 2016). TLI = 0.961; and SRMR = 0.044). All items loaded significantly and as
Configural invariance establishes that the configuration or patterns expected onto their respective latent constructs, as reported in Table 6.
of factor loadings between observed indicators and their respective Measurement invariance by ethnic-racial identification. Evidence
latent constructs are equal across groups. If the factor structure and of measurement invariance across ethnic-racial groups was assessed
patterns of factor loadings are indeed the same across groups, config- through the series of tests assessing the configural, metric, and scalar
ural invariance is supported; the configural model then acts as the equivalence of the measurement model. The model fit for each of the
baseline model against which more restrictive models are subsequently nested models was good, with minimal change observed in CFI values
compared (Schmitt & Kulijanin, 2008). Metric invariance builds on when testing the configural versus metric (ΔCFI = −0.001) and the
configural invariance to substantiate that the unstandardized coeffi- metric versus scalar models (ΔCFI = −0.003). Configural, metric, and
cients for each indicator (i.e., the factor loadings themselves) are equal scalar measurement invariance were thus verified as tenable across
across group (Kline, 2016). Similarly, scalar invariance builds on metric
invariance to substantiate that the unstandardized intercepts for each Table 5
indicator are equal across groups (Kline, 2016). Cronbach's alpha and mean interitem correlations for the 14-item CCS-S.
Given the sensitivity of the chi-square difference test to sample size, Cronbach's alpha MIC
we assessed differences in the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990)
across each series of models testing measurement invariance, with Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality (3 items) 0.83 0.62
Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism (3 items) 0.87 0.68
changes of CFI = 0.01 or greater indicating non-equivalence, or the
Critical Motivation (4 items) 0.77 0.46
lack of invariance across groups (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation (4 items) 0.86 0.61
2002; Schmitt & Kulijanin, 2008). All confirmatory factor analysis and
measurement invariance tests were carried out in Mplus version 8.3. Note. MIC = mean interitem correlation.

5
L.J. Rapa, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164

Table 6
Measurement Model for CCS-S (Study 2): Item Means and Factor Loadings by Latent Variable.
Latent variable and indicators Item mean Standardized estimate

Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality

(1) Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get ahead 2.98 0.75⁎⁎⁎
(2) Women have fewer chances to get ahead 2.68 0.83⁎⁎⁎
(3) Poor people have fewer chances to get ahead 2.97 0.78⁎⁎⁎

Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism

(1) It would be good if groups could be equal 4.93 0.83⁎⁎⁎
(2) All groups should be given an equal chance in life 5.11 0.85⁎⁎⁎
(3) We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally 4.96 0.80⁎⁎⁎

Critical Motivation
(1) It is important to correct social and economic inequality 4.41 0.73⁎⁎⁎
(2) It is important to confront someone who says something you think is racist or prejudiced 4.55 0.67⁎⁎⁎
(3) It is my responsibility to get involved and make things better for society 4.19 0.71⁎⁎⁎
(4) People like me should participate in the political activity and decision making of our country 3.98 0.61⁎⁎⁎

Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation

In the last year, how often have you:
(1) Participated in a civil rights group or organization 1.78 0.81⁎⁎⁎
(2) Participated in a political party, club, or organization 2.15 0.67⁎⁎⁎
(3) Contacted a public official by phone, mail, or email to tell him or her how you felt about a particular social or political issue 1.85 0.80⁎⁎⁎
(4) Joined in a protest march, political demonstrations, or political meeting 1.74 0.83⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

Table 7
Measurement invariance by ethnic-racial identification, grade level, and gender identity.
χ2 (df) CFI ΔCFI RMSEA TLI SRMR MI Tenable?

Ethnic-Racial Identification
Configural 833.48 (284) 0.969 – 0.043 (90% CI = [0.039, 0.046]) 0.960 0.046 –
Metric 877.65 (314) 0.968 −0.001 0.041 (90% CI = [0.038, 0.044]) 0.963 0.048 Yes
Scalar 964.75 (344) 0.965 −0.003 0.041 (90% CI = [0.038, 0.044]) 0.963 0.049 Yes

Grade Level
Configural 1348.48 (639) 0.965 – 0.048 (90% CI = [0.044,0.051]) 0.955 0.051 –
Metric 1449.44 (719) 0.964 −0.001 0.046 (90% CI = [0.042, 0.049]) 0.959 0.054 Yes
Scalar 1653.45 (799) 0.958 −0.006 0.047 (90% CI = [0.044, 0.050]) 0.957 0.057 Yes

Gender Identity
Configural 679.55 (142) 0.970 – 0.042 (90% CI = [0.039,0.045]) 0.961 0.045 –
Metric 699.07 (152) 0.969 −0.001 0.041 (90% CI = [0.038, 0.044]) 0.963 0.045 Yes
Scalar 726.75 (162) 0.968 −0.001 0.040 (90% CI = [0.037, 0.043]) 0.964 0.045 Yes

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual;
MI = Measurement Invariance. Ethnic-Racial Identification groups included Black or African American, White, Two or More Races, and Latinx. The MI Tenable?
column indicates whether measurement invariance was considered reasonable, using ΔCFI as an indicator of measurement invariance, when model constraints at the
metric or scalar levels were imposed.

ethnic-racial groups included in the model, namely across groups re-
presenting identification as Black or African American, Hispanic or
Latinx, White, and Two or More Races (see Table 7).
Measurement invariance by grade level. Similarly, evidence of
measurement invariance across grade level—which was used as a proxy
for age—was assessed through the series of tests assessing the config-
ural, metric, and scalar equivalence of the measurement model. The
model fit for each of the nested models was good, again with minimal
change observed in CFI values when testing the configural versus metric
(ΔCFI = −0.001) and the metric versus scalar models
(ΔCFI = −0.006). Thus, configural, metric, and scalar measurement
invariance were verified as tenable across grade level, from fourth to
twelfth grade (see Table 7).
Measurement invariance by gender. Finally, evidence of measure-
ment invariance across gender was assessed through the series of tests
assessing the configural, metric, and scalar equivalence of the measure-
ment model. As with our other tests of measurement invariance, the
model fit for each of the nested models was good, with minimal change
observed in CFI values when testing the configural versus metric
(ΔCFI = −0.001) and the metric versus scalar models (ΔCFI = −0.001).
Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance were therefore
verified as tenable across gender as well (see Table 7).
Discussion
Through the present research, we set out to develop and validate a
streamlined measure of critical consciousness and assess the measure-
ment invariance of the instrument across various respondent groups.
First, we extracted four subsets of items from the original CCS and
critical motivation measures to create the 14-item CCS-S, maintaining
the content and construct validity and the strong psychometric prop-
erties of the original scales. Next, we completed initial validation of the
CCS-S with a larger-scale, independent sample and tested measurement
equivalence of the measurement model of the CCS-S across ethnic-ra-
cial, age (using grade level as a proxy), and gender groups.
Our primary aims in carrying out this work were to establish a
shortened measure of critical consciousness that included each of its
component parts and to validate the measure as one suitable for use
with a wide range of individuals with varied sociodemographic char-
acteristics. This work contributes to the field of critical consciousness
scholarship in at least three principal ways. First, existing critical con-
sciousness scales include various combinations of its sub-components,
but no measure has yet been developed or validated to include all of the
construct's dimensions. This study establishes a measure of critical
consciousness that accounts for each sub-component, namely critical

6
L.J. Rapa, et al.
reflection, critical motivation, and critical action. This is important
because developing and validating a comprehensive measure of the
theorized dimensions of critical consciousness will allow the field to
move toward a more complete understanding of the construct, pri-
marily by supporting more systematic study of the complex relation-
ships between and among its component parts—research essential to
this burgeoning area of scholarship (see Heberle et al., 2020). As we
have noted, Freire conceptualized critical reflection and critical action
as having a reciprocal influence on each other, while contemporary
scholarship posits that critical motivation acts as a presumed mediator
between critical reflection and critical action (Watts et al., 2011).
However, some recent scholarship exploring these relations, albeit
through the use of proxy measures, calls this into question (e.g., Diemer
& Rapa, 2016). The assessment of critical consciousness through a
comprehensive measure that includes all of its dimensions will allow
researchers to more fully elucidate the developmental mechanisms
through which critically reflective individuals are motivated and take
action in the face of injustice (Watts et al., 2011). In sum, while the lack
of a comprehensive measure like the CCS-S does not invalidate previous
scholarship that relied on proxy or partial measures, this new instru-
ment will afford researchers the opportunity to examine more precisely
the theorized sequential and reciprocal pathways of critical con-
sciousness development, along with the interrelations between and
among its component parts (Heberle et al., 2020).
Second, this study provides a comprehensive measure of critical
consciousness that is practicable for use, in both research and applied
settings, due to its brief nature. The development and validation of a
streamlined 14-item measure that includes all dimensions of critical
consciousness will allow researchers and practitioners to measure cri-
tical consciousness more comprehensively, yet more efficiently at the
same time. This represents a meaningful contribution to the field be-
cause numerous experimental studies (e.g., Guo, Kopec, Cibere, Li, &
Goldsmith, 2016) and meta-analyses (e.g., Rolstad, Adler, & Ryden,
2011) have shown the significant inverse relationship between survey
length and response rates. A short form of the CCS can help improve
participant response rates and reduce missingness in future studies of
critical consciousness, be they cross-sectional or longitudinal. Survey
length appears of particular importance in longitudinal studies of youth
(Marek, Peterson Jr, & Henning, 2017), a study design challenge that
must be overcome as the field develops a deeper understanding of the
development of critical consciousness and the interactions among its
subcomponents over time.
Third, and perhaps most important, this study provides initial sup-
porting evidence of the invariance in the measurement of critical con-
sciousness across ethnic-racial, age, and gender identity groups, as
measured by the CCS-S instrument. This establishes equivalence across
groups in terms of the measurement of the constructs comprising cri-
tical consciousness, and it substantiates that individuals scoring simi-
larly on the instrument have the same underlying levels of each of the
assessed latent constructs (Yoon & Lai, 2018)—ultimately suggesting
legitimacy in the comparison of critical consciousness across groups in
future research utilizing the CCS-S. While critical consciousness was
originally conceptualized as a way to understand how individuals who
face marginalization and structural constraints to opportunity view and
respond to their world (Freire, 1968/2000), there has been less clarity
about if and how this construct is an appropriate framework through
which we can understand the thoughts and actions about inequity of
individuals who experience relative privilege (e.g., Diemer et al., 2016;
Godfrey & Burson, 2018; Heberle et al., 2020).
Past studies have suggested that critical consciousness may have
important nuances in how it manifests based on individual differences
in experiences of marginalization and the salience of various aspects of
intersectional identity (Diemer et al., 2015, 2016; Godfrey & Burson,
2018). The initial validation of a comprehensive measure of critical
consciousness that provides preliminary evidence of invariance across
several different identity groups—including ethnic-racial, gender, and
7
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164
age groups, and also including those who likely hold some relative
privilege—will support the important research objective of establishing
greater conceptual clarity in this area. While this study does not directly
address the question of how critical consciousness applies to those who
hold positions of privilege, we believe it lays the groundwork for future
research to examine differences in the development and levels of cri-
tical consciousness in individuals from various social groups—including
those who may be relatively more privileged, but “conscious allies”
(Rapa et al., 2020; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003).
Future research is needed that will allow for a more granular as-
sessment of the diversity and variability of critical consciousness, both
within and at the intersections of social groups. Demonstrated mea-
surement invariance across ethnic-racial groups and gender groups in
this sample does not necessarily mean that variability—either in terms
of measurement or in terms of lived experiences—does not exist among
any who identify with these groups, even if their sociodemographic
characteristics match those included here. For example, measurement
invariance may not hold if examining a sub-set of respondents who
identify as a Black and male alongside those who identify as Black and
female, given the unique experiences of Black boys versus Black girls.
Thus, researchers who assess youths' critical consciousness in future
studies should endeavor to confirm measurement equivalence across
such focal sub-groups, when merited, in order to better account for the
unique and variable ways that identification with any particular social
identity category (or sets of social identity categories) may inform the
development or operation of critical consciousness. In cases where
measurement invariance is not evident, of course, we caution against
making comparisons across groups given the likely systematic error in
measurement based upon group membership (Yoon & Lai, 2018).
Should non-equivalence be demonstrated, we encourage researchers to
shift attention from comparing coefficients and/or latent means and
instead focus on addressing the pertinence and meaning of the CCS-S
items among respondent groups. Notwithstanding, we believe this re-
search provides a foundation for future scholarship to more directly
assess differences in the development and levels of critical conscious-
ness within and among individuals from various social groups.
Implications for practice
The advances in the measurement of critical consciousness pre-
sented in this study not only represent meaningful steps in theory and
research, but also hold important implications for practice. If an ulti-
mate goal of scholars and practitioners working in this area of study is
to foster critical consciousness and empowerment among those who are
subject to marginalizing and interlocking systems of oppression
(Godfrey & Burson, 2018), then the development of programs, activ-
ities, and techniques aimed at this purpose depend on measurement
that supports valid and reliable inferences about their effectiveness and
ongoing improvements in practice. As articulated by Watts and
Hipolito-Delgado (2015), critical reflection, questioning, and social
analysis are not necessarily ends unto themselves; rather, their goal is to
bring people to action in support of social change (e.g., Kohfeldt &
Langhout, 2012). It is through the continued efforts of scholars, prac-
titioners, and those engaged in sociopolitical action that such social
change can actually be achieved.
More specifically, this comprehensive and efficient measure of cri-
tical consciousness can support critical consciousness praxis, providing
an avenue through which theoretical scholarship can inform practice
while insights from applied practice inform the further refinement of
theory (Akom, Cammarota, & Ginwright, 2008; Watts et al., 2011). For
example, by enabling research that clarifies if and how critical con-
sciousness functions differently between youth experiencing margin-
alization and their more privileged peers, the introduction of this
measure could support practitioners in the development of targeted
approaches to motivate different youth populations to critically reflect
on societal inequities and work for social change. In turn, measurement
L.J. Rapa, et al.
of the possible differential impacts of programs on the critical con-
sciousness of youth at different ages could help inform the refinement
of theories describing the processes underlying critical consciousness
development, as well as how different subcomponents change and in-
teract with each other over time (Heberle et al., 2020).
Limitations and future directions
Despite the contributions of this study to critical consciousness
scholarship and the potential utility of the newly-established CCS-S
measure, we note several limitations worth consideration, especially as
researchers and practitioners interpret these results and consider using
the CCS-S in research or applied settings. First, the data analyzed in this
study was cross-sectional as opposed to longitudinal. Whether or not
the CCS-S measure functions as one that is invariant over time for these
groups is not yet known—though we plan to assess this through future
waves of data collection. Given the developmental nature of critical
consciousness, along with its interdependence on developmental con-
texts and environment (Diemer et al., 2016), future longitudinal re-
search utilizing the CCS-S should assess whether or not the measure
demonstrates invariance over time in addition to demonstrating in-
variance across ethnic-racial, age, and gender groups.
Similarly, the data analyzed in our tests of measurement invariance
across ethnic-racial groups only had sub-sample sizes sufficient to assess
equivalence across four ethnic-racial groups, namely, for youth self-
identifying as Black or African America, Hispanic or Latinx, White, and
Two or More Races. Future research utilizing the CCS-S with other
ethnic-racial groups should extend this work to confirm if and how the
CCS-S measure functions as invariant across ethnic-racial groups be-
yond those included here.
Third, data were unavailable at the individual respondent level
pertaining to socioeconomic status. While participants in Study 2 were
recruited from schools with extremely high percentages of students in
poverty (71–99%), and thus it is likely that the majority of respondents
in our sample were low-SES, future research should assess the equiva-
lence of the CCS-S measure across various SES groups. More specifi-
cally, researchers using the CCS-S with participants who may identify as
middle or upper class should validate the use of the instrument when
using it with those samples. Further, researchers should test measure-
ment invariance across SES groups before making comparisons or be-
fore drawing conclusions about differences in the critical consciousness
of lower- versus higher-SES respondents.
Fourth, this shortened measure of critical consciousness is still
constrained by some of the limitations of the other existing measur-
es—namely, it does not explicate subtle differences in respondents'
understanding or awareness of inequities that exist at the nexus of
ethnic-racial, gender, or social class lines, or those that manifest for
individuals at the intersection of such social identities (see Diemer
et al., 2016; Godfrey & Burson, 2018; Heberle et al., 2020). Indeed,
dependent on an individual's identity and experiences with margin-
alization and/or privilege, one may be more aware of inequality in a
certain domain (e.g., across ethnic-racial groups) than in another do-
main (e.g., across socioeconomic status or gender). Practically, this
means that a respondent who very strongly agrees that a certain kind of
inequality exists (e.g., ethnic-racial) but less strongly agrees that other
kinds of inequality exist (e.g., class or gender inequalities) could score
the same as a respondent who agrees, albeit more moderately, that each
of these inequalities exist. To address this issue, future research could
utilize person-centered analyses, like latent class analysis, in order to
identify or tease apart some of the nuanced differences between varied
manifestations of critical consciousness or certain typologies of re-
spondents. Additionally, future research should aim to address the
further development or refinement of measures in order to rectify
concerns related to individuals' understanding of inequity across do-
mains as well as those at their intersections (Heberle et al., 2020). In
fact, while the CCS-S is not a panacea for all critical consciousness
8
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164
measurement issues, the creation of this short measure of critical con-
sciousness may serve to open the door for researchers to develop and
test additional items focused in these ways, without the fear of over-
burdening respondents through survey fatigue.
Relatedly, this shortened but more holistic measure of critical con-
sciousness should better support opportunities for the assessment of
critical consciousness alongside other constructs of interest, primarily
due to practical constraints associated with large-scale data collection
(e.g., the amount of time available to researchers or practitioners to
survey young people). The availability of a short critical consciousness
scale has the potential to advance scholarship by affording opportu-
nities for further testing of convergent and divergent validity or for
association with other constructs of interest. For example, the use of the
CCS-S could be coupled with other emergent measures tapping youths'
understanding and awareness of privilege and oppression (e.g.,
McClellan, Montross-Thomas, Remer, Nakai, & Monroe, 2019) or with
those assessing youths' engagement in explicit action to address issues
such as racism (e.g., Aldana, Bañales, & Richards-Schuster, 2019).
Doing so would help further understanding of convergent and divergent
validity of the measure with other instruments tapping similar con-
structs or measuring various dimensions of critical consciousness. Fu-
ture research should also assess relations between the constructs mea-
sured by the CCS-S and various outcomes of interest (e.g., academic
achievement, civic development and engagement, occupational ex-
pectancies and attainment) in order, for example, to substantiate the
instrument's concurrent validity.
Additionally, opportunities also exist to couple the administration of
the CCS-S with other measures assessing critical consciousness via
perceptions about forms of marginalization and oppression such as
heterosexism, cissexism, and ableism (Shin et al., 2016; Shin et al.,
2018). When doing so, measurement invariance across groups whose
social identities are shaped by these forms of marginalization should be
considered as well—for example, persons with disabilities or those
identifying as LGBTQIA. This would further elucidate how critical
consciousness and its component parts—critical reflection, critical
motivation, and critical action—is associated with but distinct from
related constructs, and how it operates similarly or differently for in-
dividuals from these varied social identity groups.
Notably, researchers utilizing the CCS-S should also be sensitive to
the ways in which youths' environment might shape the development or
operation of critical consciousness. For example, youth embedded in
“consciousness-raising systems” (Heberle et al., 2020, p. 544) could
have greater access to opportunity structures that support critical
consciousness development or could be embedded in contexts in which
they might more easily demonstrate critical reflection, motivation, or
action (see also Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Conversely, youth might
otherwise be embedded in “marginalizing systems” (Godfrey & Burson,
2018, p. 22) or in contexts where the demonstration of critical reflec-
tion, motivation, or action would have adverse or negative con-
sequences (Shedd, 2015). In the end, scholars doing work in this area,
either in research or applied settings, should account for how youths'
context might support or constrain the development and operation of
critical consciousness.
Conclusion
Through this work, we developed and completed analyses to sup-
port initial validation of a short measure of critical consciousness that
both incorporates all of its subcomponents and provides preliminary
evidence supporting measurement invariance across respondents of
varied ethnic-racial, age, and gender identity groups. This incremental
advancement in the measurement of critical consciousness has mean-
ingful implications, for both research and applied contexts. Our hope is
that the use of the CCS-S will not only engender deeper understanding
of critical consciousness—including for whom and how it develops, and
how it operates over time—but also that it will enable research to
L.J. Rapa, et al.
support and clarify if and how critical consciousness functions differ-
ently among individuals experiencing marginalization versus their
more privileged counterparts. We also hope that the use of the CCS-S
will enable practitioners to develop targeted approaches to provide
support as youth critically reflect on societal inequities, navigate
structural barriers that limit their pathways to success, and promote
social change that results in a more equitable world.
Funding details
This research was supported in part by funding provided through
the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education Centers of
Excellence grant program.
Disclosure statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare with regard to
this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.appdev.2020.101164.
References
Akom, A. A., Cammarota, J., & Ginwright, A. (2008). Youthtopias: Towards a new
paradigm of critical youth studies. Youth Media Reporter, 2(4), 1–30.
Aldana, A., Bañales, J., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2019). Youth anti-racist engagement:
Conceptualization, development, and validation of an anti-racist action scale.
Adolescent Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00113-1 Advance
online publication.
Baker, A. M., & Brookins, C. C. (2014). Toward the development of a measure of socio-
political consciousness: Listening to the voices of Salvadoran youth. Journal of
Community Psychology, 42, 1015–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21668.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238–246.
Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. W. (2014). Missing the (student
achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican
American studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51,
1084–1118. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214553705.
Carter Andrews, D. J. (2008). Achievement as resistance: The development of a critical
race achievement ideology among black achievers. Harvard Educational Review,
78(3), 466–497.
Causadias, J. M., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2018). Reframing marginalization and youth
development: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 73(6),
707–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000336.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement in-
variance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705510701301834.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.
org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1040-3590.7.3.309.
Collective, C. R. (1977/2014). A black feminist statement. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 42,
271–280. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2014.0052.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist cri-
tique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum139–167.
DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Diemer, M. A., & Blustein, D. L. (2006). Critical consciousness and career development
among urban youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jvb.2005.07.001.
Diemer, M. A., & Hsieh, C. (2008). Sociopolitical development and vocational expecta-
tions among lower-socioeconomic status adolescents of color. The Career Development
Quarterly, 56, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2008.tb00040.x.
Diemer, M. A., & Li, C. (2011). Critical consciousness and political engagement among
marginalized youth. Child Development, 82, 1815–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2011.01650.x.
Diemer, M. A., McWhirter, E., Ozer, E., & Rapa, L. J. (2015). Advances in the con-
ceptualization and measurement of critical consciousness. The Urban Review, 47,
809–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0336-7.
Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., López, I., & Reimers, F. (2012). Best
practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/
9
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164
asap.12001.
Diemer, M. A., & Rapa, L. J. (2016). Unraveling the complexity of critical consciousness,
political efficacy, and political action among marginalized adolescents. Child
Development, 87, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12446.
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation
of the critical consciousness scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461–483. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0044118X14538289.
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Voight, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2016). Critical con-
sciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression.
Child Development Perspectives, 10(4), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12193.
Freire, P. (1968/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.
García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., &
Vázquez García, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental
competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1131600.
Godfrey, E. B., & Burson, E. (2018). Interrogating the intersections: How intersectional
perspectives can inform developmental scholarship on critical consciousness. In C. E.
Santos, & R. B. Toomey (Vol. Eds.), Envisioning the integration of an intersectional lens in
developmental science. 161. Envisioning the integration of an intersectional lens in devel-
opmental science (pp. 17–38). New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development.
Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E., & Burson, E. (2019). For better or worse? System-justifying
beliefs in sixth-grade predict trajectories of self-esteem and behavior across early
adolescence. Child Development, 90, 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.1285.
Guo, Y., Kopec, J. A., Cibere, J., Li, L. C., & Goldsmith, C. H. (2016). Population survey
features and response rates: A randomized experiment. American Journal of Public
Health, 106(8), 1422–1426. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303198.
Heberle, A. E., Rapa, L. J., & Farago, F. (2020). Critical consciousness in children and
adolescents: A systematic review, critical assessment, and recommendations for fu-
ture research. Psychological Bulletin, 146(6), 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000230.
Kline, R. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Kohfeldt, D., & Langhout, R. D. (2012). The five whys method: A tool for developing
problem definitions in collaboration with children. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 23, 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1114.
Marek, P. M., Peterson, A. V., Jr., & Henning, M. (2017). Design and results for a survey of
nonrespondents in a longitudinal cohort of young adults. Journal of Survey Statistics
and Methodology, 5(4), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smx013.
McClellan, M. J., Montross-Thomas, L. P., Remer, P., Nakai, Y., & Monroe, A. D. (2019).
Development and validation of the awareness of privilege and oppression scale-2.
SAGE Open, 9(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019853906.
McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, B. T. (2016). Critical consciousness and vocational de-
velopment among Latina/o high school youth: Initial development and testing of a
measure. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1069072715599535.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Author.
O'Connor, C. (1997). Dispositions toward (collective) struggle and educational resilience
in the inner city: A case analysis of six African-American high school students.
American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 593–629.
Rapa, L. J., Diemer, M. A., & Bañales, J. (2018). Critical action as a pathway to social
mobility among marginalized youth. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 127–137.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000414.
Rapa, L. J., Diemer, M. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2020). Can a values-affirmation intervention
bolster academic achievement and raise critical consciousness? Results from a small-
scale field experiment. Social Psychology of Education, 23(2), 537–557. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-020-09546-2.
Rivas-Drake, D., Markstrom, C., Syed, M., Lee, R. M., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yip, T., ...
French, S. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psy-
chosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85, 40–57. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12200.
Rolstad S., Adler J., & Ryden A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is
shorter better? A review and meta-analysis,” Value in Health, 14, 1101–1108. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003.
Schmitt, N., & Kulijanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and
implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222.
Seider, S., Clark, S., & Graves, D. (2019). The development of critical consciousness and
its relation to academic achievement in adolescents of color. Child Development.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13262 Advance online publication.
Seider, S., El-Amin, A., & Kelly, L. (2020). The development of critical consciousness. Oxford
handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Shin, R. Q., Ezeofor, I., Smith, L. C., Welch, J. C., & Goodrich, K. M. (2016). The devel-
opment and validation of the contemporary critical consciousness measure. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 63, 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000137.
Shin, R. Q., Smith, L. C., Lu, Y., Welch, J. C., Sharma, R., Vernay, C. N., & Yee, S. (2018).
The development and validation of the contemporary critical consciousness measure
II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000302.
Singh, S., Javdani, S., Berezin, M. N., & Sichel, C. E. (2020). Factor structure of the critical
consciousness scale in juvenile legal system-involved boys and girls. Journal of
Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22362 Advanced online
publication.
L.J. Rapa, et al.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and
internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.
Syvertsen, A. K., Scales, P. C., & Toomey, R. B. (2019). Developmental assets framework
revisited: Confirmatory analysis and invariance testing to create a new generation of
assets measures for applied research. Applied Developmental Science, 1–16. Advance
online publication https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2019.1613155.
Thomas, A. J., Barrie, R., Brunner, J., Clawson, A., Hewitt, A., Jeremie-Brink, G., & Rowe
Johnson, M. (2014). Assessing critical consciousness in youth and young adults.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.
12132.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2011). Secondary data analysis: An
introduction for psychologists. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status
and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134,
43–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.310.
Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A
10
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 70 (2020) 101164
developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community
Psychology, 35, 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178.
Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an
antidote for oppression—Theory and action. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 27, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022839818873.
Watts, R. J., & Hipolito-Delgado, C. P. (2015). Thinking ourselves to liberation?:
Advancing sociopolitical action in critical consciousness. The Urban Review, 47(5),
847–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0341-x.
Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–194 (doi: 10.1023/A:1023091024 140).
Yoon, M., & Lai, M. H. C. (2018). Testing factorial invariance with unbalanced samples.
Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.
1387859.
Zimmerman, M. A., Ramírez-Valles, J., & Maton, K. I. (1999). Resilience among urban
African American male adolescents: A study of the protective effects of sociopolitical
control on their mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6),
733–751.