Clinical utility and psychometric properties of the Ableist Microaggressions Scale

Comments on an article by K. J. Conover et al. (see record 2017-30398-007). Conover and colleagues developed and validated the self report Ableist Microaggressions Scale (AMS). Using factor analysis, the authors identified four subscales, including Helplessness, Minimization, Denial of Personhood, and Otherization. The psychometric properties of the AMS have been examined with adults with a range of disability types. The AMS consists of 20 items, and each item is scored on a 6- point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting greater experiences of microaggressions. Three positively worded items are reverse scored. The initial validation study included a sample size of 1,392 participants with various types of disabilities, an average age of 34, and a higher proportion of participants who identified as female relative to other sex/gender expressions, the majority of the sample identified as heterosexual and White. In this study, the AMS had good total-score internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of .91; three of the four subscales generally showed adequate as given their number of items: .83 for Helplessness, .90 for Denial of Personhood, and .84 for Otherization. However, the Minimization subscale displayed relatively weaker internal consistency with an a of .65. Additionally, the AMS showed adequate item-total correlations ranging from .21 to .77. Despite the high potential of the AMS to be used in research and clinical work, there are several limitations. The original validation study sample was comprised primarily of White heterosexual participants which may warrant caution in applications to racially/ethnically diverse groups and sexual minorities. Because individuals with mild-to-moderate disability may be less likely to participate in research, caution should also be exercised regarding generalizability to and use with more severe disability groups, including individuals with psychiatric disabilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).