Naheed Ahmed — Measurement of Perceived Interpersonal and Societal Anti-Muslim Discrimination in the United States

51 published claims from this book.

• Absence of a validated scale has stalled research on anti-Muslim discrimination health effects
• Allowing correlated error among similar depression items improves model fit.
• Anti-Muslim discrimination exposure correlates with depressive symptoms among Muslim Americans
• Anti-Muslim discrimination measurement tools remain scarce despite rising hate crimes
• Anti-Muslim discrimination operates across individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels
• Anti-Muslim discrimination operates institutionally through policies, surveillance, and attacks on worship sites
• Anti-Muslim discrimination patterns parallel those faced by other US minorities
• Anti-Muslim discrimination spans slurs, violence, vandalism, and state surveillance
• Anti-Muslim harassment of visibly Muslim men and women differs by gender
• Cognitive interviews catch misread survey questions before data collection begins
• Cognitive interviews expanded the societal scale but left the interpersonal one intact
• Correlation strength between scales indicates whether they measure the same construct.
• Discrimination harms health through both acute and cumulative pathways.
• Discrimination harms health through stress hormones and coping behaviors
• Discrimination is a formative construct built by accumulated exposures, unlike depression or anxiety.
• Existing anti-Muslim discrimination scales omit institutionalized forms of discrimination
• Foreign men sexually harass black American women based on stereotypes
• Frequent minor discrimination forces targets to habituate to it for daily functioning.
• General discrimination scales miss hate crimes and institutionalized bias
• Generic discrimination scales fail to capture anti-Muslim discrimination specifically
• Interpretability, not statistical criteria alone, should decide how many components to retain
• Items rare in the population can load negatively and distort a discrimination scale
• Low public awareness does not make a discrimination item invalid
• McDonald’s omega outperforms Cronbach’s alpha by allowing loadings to vary.
• Measuring discrimination is distorted by both underreporting and hypervigilance.
• Measuring discrimination requires instruments built for the specific group and context.
• Missing data were kept in the dataset and excluded only as the analyses required.
• Muslim American discrimination experience spans cemeteries, mosques, jobs, schools and accommodations.
• Muslim Americans are demographically far more diverse than commonly assumed
• Muslim Americans face discrimination layered across race, faith, gender, and legal status
• New indexes enable systematic measurement of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination
• Perceived anti-Muslim discrimination spans policy, societal attitudes, and bias incidents.
• Perceived discrimination harms health even when motive is unknown
• Perceived discrimination scales must be validated down to a final item set before use.
• Racism-related stress falls into six distinct measurable forms
• Research on anti-Muslim discrimination and health stalls for lack of data and measurement tools
• Rotating eigenvalues obliquely clarifies clustered survey items orthogonal rotation blurs
• Scale validity improves when instruments are built from lived experience plus expert review
• Separate incentive forms preserve participant anonymity in sensitive-topic surveys
• Studying tiny, dispersed populations forces researchers into biased sampling strategies.
• Survey wording that implies Muslims are outsiders changes what an item measures.
• Symptom scales estimate depression likelihood rather than diagnosing it.
• The Everyday Discrimination Scale measures perceived unfair treatment across multiple identities
• Theorizing discrimination’s full range makes measured and lived experience diverge
• Think-aloud probes reveal how respondents interpret survey wording in real time
• US Muslims are unusually diverse in ancestry, color, and migration pathway
• Vague evaluative wording makes survey items unreliable across respondents
• Vague geographic framing in discrimination items produces ambiguous, uninterpretable responses.
• Visible Muslim identity makes public harassment a routine risk
• Wording choices in discrimination scales determine whose experiences get counted
• Wording that conflates American with non-Muslim signals Muslims are outsiders