The development and validation of the Contemporary Critical Consciousness Measure.

Abstract

The development of critical consciousness (CC) has been theorized to be an essential prerequisite for individual and collective action toward changing inequitable social conditions. However, empirically supported instruments intended to measure this important construct have only recently been introduced to the literature. The purpose of this project was to create a brief, psychometrically sound measure of CC. Two studies with over 600 observations provide initial reliability and validity data on the Contemporary Critical Consciousness Measure (CCCM). Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggest that the final 19-item CCCM assesses CC associated with racism, classism, and heterosexism and provides a general index of CC. Results support the internal consistency and factor structure of the measure. Expected relationships between the CCCM and existing measures of symbolic racism, classism, and homonegativity provide evidence for the validity of the instrument. Limitations, future directions for research, and counseling implications are discussed.

Critical Consciousness: A Critique and Critical Analysis of the Literature

“…Chronister et al (2004) state that CC is overcoming false consciousness and achieving a critical understanding of self, environment/world, and one’s place in the world including awareness of how values, beliefs and practices reinforce structures of injustice. Shin et al (2016) provide a slight variation by defining CC “as awareness of the systemic, institutionalized forms of discrimination associated with racism, classism, and heterosexism” (p. 210). Some scholars include a causal understanding rooted in history (Watts et al 2011).…”

“…Many scholars have supplemented the definition of conscientizaçāo for the definition of critical consciousness and/or scholars use the terms critical consciousness, conscientizaçāo, conscientization, and consciousness-raising interchangeably (e.g., Diemer et al 2016; Shin et al 2016; Windsor et al 2014a). A probable and more accurate interpretation is that although, consciousness-raising, conscientization and conscientizaçāo are the same concepts, critical consciousness is not synonymous with conscientizaçāo.…”

“…These issues cause concern over the future and utility of critical consciousness theory, research, and practice (Goodman et al 1998). If fundamental questions remain unanswered, CC scholars will continue to produce divergent theory and assessments of CC (e.g., Baker and Brookins 2014; Diemer et al 2014; Jemal 2016; McWhirter and McWhirter 2016; Shin et al 2016; Thomas et al 2014). As such, the importance of critical consciousness as a key phenomenon of interest may be minimized unless theoretical and empirical issues are addressed with greater precision.…”

Transformative Consciousness of Health Inequities: Oppression Is a Virus and Critical Consciousness Is the Antidote

“…In other words, differences in social perspectives and identities are grounded in sociopolitical processes, “because humans are socially constituted, as is evidenced by how the regard and treatment they receive from others informs their self- image and sense of place in society” (Murray, 2011, p. 154). It is important and necessary for TC to be informed by the socio-ecological model because forms of inequity operate at each socio-ecological level: from individual prejudice and discrimination, to institutional processes that create disparities, to cultural norms and values (Shin, Ezeofor, Smith, Welch, & Goodrich, 2016). Moreover, processes, practices, and outcomes of inequity at one level mutually reinforce inequitable processes, practices, and outcomes at the other levels (Shin et al, 2016).…”

“…It is important and necessary for TC to be informed by the socio-ecological model because forms of inequity operate at each socio-ecological level: from individual prejudice and discrimination, to institutional processes that create disparities, to cultural norms and values (Shin, Ezeofor, Smith, Welch, & Goodrich, 2016). Moreover, processes, practices, and outcomes of inequity at one level mutually reinforce inequitable processes, practices, and outcomes at the other levels (Shin et al, 2016). As such, the relevance of the social-ecological model to TC is multi- leveled.…”