Measuring Gender Identity and Religious Identity with Adapted Versions of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure—Revised

Abstract

Adolescent identity develops across various domains (e.g., ethnicity, gender, religion). Although these domains share elements of identity (e.g., belongingness, self-categorization) there is a lack of continuity in the elements selected when measuring various domains of adolescent identity. This study tested whether an adapted version of Phinney and Ong's (2007) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (developed to measure adolescents' ethnic identity) could also measure gender and religious identities. Participants (N = 247, 56% female, M age = 13.33 years) completed adapted versions of the MEIM-R measuring gender identity (which we call the Multi-Identity Measure for Gender) and religious identity (Multi-Identity Measure for Religion). Confirmatory factor analysis models for the MIM-Gender and MIM-Religion scales demonstrated modest to good fits. In addition, the MIM-Gender and MIM-Religion scales demonstrated preliminary validity. These preliminary results suggest the adapted MEIM-R scales have the potential to measure domains of adolescent identity beyond ethnicity.

The Utrecht-Management of Identity Commitments Scale (U-MICS)

“…In order to further test the meaningfulness and distinctiveness of these statuses, we tested whether gender (males vs. females), age (adolescents vs. emerging adults vs. adults), and religious status (believers vs. atheists) were differently distributed across them. Ashdown et al, 2014;Dimitrova et al, 2014), none of these has been validated in the Italian language, so they could not be used to test the convergent validity of the U-MICSreligious domain scores. As the instrument we aimed to validate refers to the religious realm, we collected convergent validity evidence testing the relationships that the U-MICSreligious domain scores (obtained both using a variable-and person-centered approach) had with four aspects of religiousness (believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging) by using the validated Italian version of the Big Four Dimensions of Religiousness Scale (Saroglou, 2011).…”

“…While religiosity has been extensively investigated, religious identity remains a less explored topic, especially in terms of its development (Bell, 2016). Indeed, although instruments aimed at measuring this construct adopt different methodological approaches (Ashdown et al, 2014; Brambilla et al, 2016; Dimitrova et al, 2014; Keyes & Reitzes, 2007), they do not unveil the processes underlying the formation of religious identity. Briefly, little is known about how people explore, commit to, and reevaluate their religious identity.…”

Muslim Acculturation in a Catholic Country

“…To assess the identification dimension, we used a modified version of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure–Revised (MEIM-R, Phinney & Ong, 2007), in which, “ethnic group” was substituted by “religious group.” Our choice was based on the above-discussed overlap between religions and cultures (Saroglou & Cohen, 2013) and was supported by the findings of Ashdown, Homa, and Brown (2014). The MEIM-R consists of six items scored on a 4-point Likert-type format.…”

Challenges faced by International students at Kwantlen Polytechnic University

“…The religiosity scale consisted of nine items, which were scored on a five-point Likert type rating scale. Four items were adapted from Ashdown, Homa, and Brown's (2014) religious identity scale, which measured interdependence and attachment to the religious group, content and meaning of being religious, and self-categorization as being religious. Five other items were added of which four pertained to satisfaction with one's life and one item to allow for religious non-affiliation.…”