3.3. Due to space constraints, descriptions of these scales have been reserved for the table.
Table 3.3 Selected list of the most frequently cited acculturation scales.
| Title | Authors | Year | Population(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans‐II [17] | Israel Cuellar,Bill Arnold,Roberto Maldonado | 1995 | Mexican Americans, also used among other Latinos | Multidimensional measure based on language use and preference, ethnic identity and classification, cultural heritage and ethnic behaviors, and ethnic interaction |
| Short acculturation scale for Hispanics [18] | Gerardo Marín,Fabio Sabogal,Barbara Vanoos Marín,Regina Otero‐Sabogal,Eliseo J. Pérez‐Stable | 1987 | Latinos | Bidimensional measure based on language use, media, and ethnic social relations |
| Suinn‐Lew Asian self‐identity acculturation scale [19] | Richard M. Suinn,Kathryn Rickard‐Figueroa,Sandra Lew,Patricia Vigil | 1987 | Asian Americans | Bidimensional measure based on language, identity, friendship choice, behaviors, generation/geographic history, and attitudes |
| Vancouver index of acculturation [20] | Andrew G. Ryder,Lynn E. Alden,Delroy L. Paulhus | 2000 | Multicultural | Bidimensional measure based on heritage and mainstream cultural identification |
3.4.2.2 Social and Physical Environments
It is important to examine the context through which the social determinants interact to influence health and the mechanisms by which these factors lead to poor health outcomes. As mentioned in Section 3.4.1.3, Figure 3.2 is a conceptual model that illustrates distal and proximal mediators and moderators of SES at multiple levels that influence health behaviors and outcomes. In addition to some of the determinants discussed in this chapter, SES is affected by social context. For example, geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural) and how structures within these locations are built to impede or enhance health is determined by access to resources as well as the political, community, and economic will for the built environment to support health. The health and political systems are also depicted in Figure 3.2 to highlight their important influence on health.
Social context can be divided into two environments: the social environment and the physical environment. Each can separately or interactively exert pressure on the ability of individuals and communities to access necessary resources to support a healthy lifestyle. Some of the components of these environments are related to SES and can be measured at the individual and community/neighborhood levels (e.g., income and educational attainment). The term social environment refers to socioeconomic factors (e.g., employment and educational attainment), social relations (e.g., within a community or workplace), and power arrangements (e.g., political empowerment, individual and community control and influence) [21]. At the community level, other aspects of the social environment include social capital (i.e., a measure of the quality of relationships among community residents), social cohesion (i.e., conditions of mutual trust and solidarity among neighbors), collective efficacy (i.e., a measure of the willingness to help out for the common good), and social control (i.e., the capacity of a group to regulate its members according to desired principles). SES is the component of the social environment that has been studied the most [22].
Social capital has been used as a measure of the social environment in order to elucidate aspects of that environment other than SES that can influence health outcomes and health behaviors. In 2014, the Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom produced a report that aimed to unify the different measures of social capital [23]. The authors organized social capital into four major areas: (i) Personal Relationships, (ii) Social Network Support, (iii) Civic Engagement, and (iv) Trust and Cooperative Norms. Measures of personal relationships include “Have at least one close friend” and “Meeting with friends or family members at least once a week.” For social networks, measures include, “Have someone to rely on if they have a serious problem,” and “Borrow things and exchange favors with neighbors.”
The next two areas go beyond personal relationships and explore community‐level factors of social capital, including the measure of “Voted in last national election” as a proxy for civic engagement. For trust and cooperative norms, the more salient measures focus on agreeing with the following statements: “Most people can be trusted,” “People in my neighborhood can be trusted,” and “People in my neighborhood are willing to help each other.” Using these measures to understand the type of personal and community relationships from which people can draw support allows for the creation of programs and policies that can leverage these resources for improving health.
Another social construct, collective efficacy [24], measures the ability of communities to harness social environmental factors. This construct uses the concepts of informal social control and social cohesion and trust. Informal social control can be measured by asking respondents about the likelihood that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways if (i) children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, (ii) children were spray‐painting graffiti on a local building, (iii) children were showing disrespect to an adult, (iv) a fight broke out in front of their house, and (v) the fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts, where respondents were given response options from very likely to very unlikely on a five‐point scale. Also on a five‐point scale, the social cohesion and trust construct asks respondents how strongly they agree that “People around here are willing to help their neighbors,” “This is a close‐knit neighborhood,” “People in this neighborhood can be trusted,” “People in this neighborhood generally don't get along with each other,” and “People in this neighborhood do not share the same values.” Collective efficacy and social cohesion have been found to be associated with a variety of social factors and health behaviors, including rates of violence, smoking, and obesity.
Factors in the physical environment that are important to health include harmful substances (e.g., air pollution or proximity to toxic sites), physical surroundings (e.g., neighborhood and work conditions), access to various health‐related resources (e.g., healthy or unhealthy foods, recreational resources, and medical care), and community design and the built environment (e.g., land use mix, street connectivity, and transportation systems) [25]. The built environment includes all of the physical parts of where people live and work (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, open spaces, and infrastructure) [16]. The built environment can be measured subjectively or objectively. Objective measurements include directly observing the presence of litter, the number of abandoned buildings and cars, walkability, presence of green space, and the number or duration of broken windows. Walkability is the measure that is most often used in examining the impact of the built environment on health behaviors. Measurements of walkability include proximity and accessibility to key destinations, availability of sidewalks, availability of trails and parks, safety, and number and location of complex intersections (see example of walkability data in Section 3.5.3).
Subjective
