Undergraduate Gender Microaggressions Measure: Factor Structure and Reliability

Background and Purpose: Sexual violence has substantial reach on college campuses and is associated with a range of negative outcomes, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, problem drinking, and missing school. Current policies and intervention strategies lack the primary prevention focus needed to tackle campus sexual violence and create safer campus communities. A substantial gap in the current campus sexual violence literature is its exclusion of chronic, “low-severity” forms of gender-based aggression known as gender microaggressions. Gender microaggressions are intentional and unintentional slights, insults, and invalidations based on gender. There is a dearth of information regarding the microaggressive experiences of undergraduate women on college campuses. To address this gap, the Undergraduate Gender Microaggressions Measure (UGMM) was developed. This study explores the measure’s factor structure and proposed reliability of the subscale(s).

Methods: The analysis included 220 undergraduate women from a West coast research university. Eligibility criteria were: 18-25 years old, self-identification as a woman, current undergraduate enrollment at [university blinded], and Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 enrollment. The UGMM was developed for the current study through a systematic literature review, focus groups, expert consultation, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. This rigorous developmental process resulted in a 28-item measure. Responses were on a Likert-style scale ranging from Never (0) to Daily or almost daily (5). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed, using Stata 14.2, to examine the scale’s latent factor structure. Kaiser’s criterion was used to retain factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Promax rotation was used and factor loadings above .4 were retained.

Results: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy statistic was excellent at .91 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant, χ² (378) = 2309.41, p < .001. Four factor were extracted and accounted for 79% of the total variance. Eight items loaded onto Factor 1 related to presumed incompetence (e.g., “… assumed not to know basic material”). Six items loaded onto Factor 2 related to gender role stereotypes (e.g., … expected to bring snacks or prepare food”). Seven items loaded onto factor 3 related to male dominance (e.g., “… talked over by a man”). Two items loaded onto factor 4 related to institutional failure (e.g., “… not adequate lighting for you to walk through campus at night”). A 23-item scale was developed and five items were dropped due to low loadings across factors or high cross loadings. Reliability for presumed incompetence subscale was α=.89, gender role stereotypes subscales was α=.85, male dominance subscale was α=.86, and institutional failure subscale was α=.75.

Conclusions and Implications: EFA suggests a four-factor measure. The design and validation of this measure is a first step in improving social work researchers’ ability to investigate the cumulative and chronic impact of gender microagressive campus climates. As social work practitioners strive to assess and serve campus communities, it is critical that we understand not only blatant experiences of negativity and sexual violence but the subtle stressors and that may impact campus climate and increase the frequency of more legally actionable forms of sexual violence.