Erent pattern among non-citizen Latinos, with perceived discrimination and collective action to be closely related. There is less variation in how the measures of group consciousness relate to each other among Asian Americans, however, as we find the measures of collective action and discrimination are more closely aligned among both groups of this population. 6 Although outside the scope of this MG-132MedChemExpress MG-132 article, these results suggest that scholars interested in exploring group identity across the Latino should be sensitive to the nuances associated with how group identity is manifested across differently among Latinos who are and are not US citizens. The next step in our analysis is to use an exploratory factor analysis to estimate the number of LosmapimodMedChemExpress SB856553 factors underlying group commonality, perceived discrimination, and collective action. Table 2, provides the output with variance explained, factor loadings, and chi-square goodness of fit statistics. Our results indicate that when combined there is one factor underlying the three measures group consciousness for Black and Hispanic respondents but a two factor solution for White and Asian respondents. This is an important finding that provides some clarity to researchers regarding measurement approaches. We suggest that if estimating a model using group consciousness as an explanatory variable, researchers can combine these three measures into one factor to gain strengths regarding parsimony (such as a scale) for Blacks and Hispanics, but should also include the second factor for Whites and Asians. In terms of model fit, the exploratory factor analysis is strongest for Blacks (chi2(3) = 200.4, prob>chi2 = 0.0000) with the one factor solution explaining 79 percent of the variance. Thus, while this analysis provides some support for our expectation that there would be similarities in measurement fit for Latinos and African Americans given common discrimination experiences for both groups, it is clear that the dimensions of group identity commonly utilized by scholars in the field best fit the African American case. The next step in our analysis is to explain the majority of the variance for the retained factor? In other words what item is driving the effect in the retained group identity latent variable? The rotated factor loadings and pattern matrix are provided in Table 2 and allow us to understand how variables are weighted for each factor and the correlation between the variables and the latent factor. For Latinos and Blacks, the individual item that is driving theAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript6The analysis for Asians should be taken with some caution, as we are concerned about the limitations regarding language for the Asian sample. NPS was only administered in English and Spanish and does not adequately take into consideration the great variation in language for Asian populations. Polit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPagerelationship is perceived discrimination (Hispanics=32 percent, Blacks=54 percent). We visually saw this relationship with the biplots in Figure 1, as perceived discrimination and commonality are more closely aligned (cosines were smaller) for African Americans, and perceived discrimination and collective action are more closely aligned for Hispanics. This provides support to our theory regarding similarities between Latinos and Blacks, as perceived discrimination is the driving force within group.Erent pattern among non-citizen Latinos, with perceived discrimination and collective action to be closely related. There is less variation in how the measures of group consciousness relate to each other among Asian Americans, however, as we find the measures of collective action and discrimination are more closely aligned among both groups of this population. 6 Although outside the scope of this article, these results suggest that scholars interested in exploring group identity across the Latino should be sensitive to the nuances associated with how group identity is manifested across differently among Latinos who are and are not US citizens. The next step in our analysis is to use an exploratory factor analysis to estimate the number of factors underlying group commonality, perceived discrimination, and collective action. Table 2, provides the output with variance explained, factor loadings, and chi-square goodness of fit statistics. Our results indicate that when combined there is one factor underlying the three measures group consciousness for Black and Hispanic respondents but a two factor solution for White and Asian respondents. This is an important finding that provides some clarity to researchers regarding measurement approaches. We suggest that if estimating a model using group consciousness as an explanatory variable, researchers can combine these three measures into one factor to gain strengths regarding parsimony (such as a scale) for Blacks and Hispanics, but should also include the second factor for Whites and Asians. In terms of model fit, the exploratory factor analysis is strongest for Blacks (chi2(3) = 200.4, prob>chi2 = 0.0000) with the one factor solution explaining 79 percent of the variance. Thus, while this analysis provides some support for our expectation that there would be similarities in measurement fit for Latinos and African Americans given common discrimination experiences for both groups, it is clear that the dimensions of group identity commonly utilized by scholars in the field best fit the African American case. The next step in our analysis is to explain the majority of the variance for the retained factor? In other words what item is driving the effect in the retained group identity latent variable? The rotated factor loadings and pattern matrix are provided in Table 2 and allow us to understand how variables are weighted for each factor and the correlation between the variables and the latent factor. For Latinos and Blacks, the individual item that is driving theAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript6The analysis for Asians should be taken with some caution, as we are concerned about the limitations regarding language for the Asian sample. NPS was only administered in English and Spanish and does not adequately take into consideration the great variation in language for Asian populations. Polit Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 March 01.Sanchez and VargasPagerelationship is perceived discrimination (Hispanics=32 percent, Blacks=54 percent). We visually saw this relationship with the biplots in Figure 1, as perceived discrimination and commonality are more closely aligned (cosines were smaller) for African Americans, and perceived discrimination and collective action are more closely aligned for Hispanics. This provides support to our theory regarding similarities between Latinos and Blacks, as perceived discrimination is the driving force within group.
