Feminist identity development: Psychometric analyses of two feminist identity scales

N. E. Downing and K. L. Roush (1985) “From Passive Acceptance to Active Commitment: A Model of Feminist Identity Development,”The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 13, pp. 695–709] proposed a five-level developmental model of feminist identity that charts development from passive acceptance of traditional gender roles toward active commitment to feminist ideals and an egalitarian society. A Bargad and J. S. Hyde (1991) “Women’s Studies: A Study of Feminist Identity Development in Women,”Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 181–201] and K. M. Rickard (1989) “The Relationship of Self-Monitored Dating Behaviors to Level of Feminist Identity on the Feminist Identity Scale,Sex Roles, Vol. 20, pp. 213–226] developed questionnaires to measure the Downing and Roush levels. The goal of the present study was to further explore the reliability and validity of the two feminist identity development scales. Participants included 198 female students who were taking either a women’s studies class or a general psychology class. They were administered Rickard’s and Bargad and Hyde’s scales of feminist identity development and a measure of cognitive development both at the beginning and end of the semester. Sixty-six percent of the participants classified themselves as Caucasian, 13% as Asian, 7% as African American, 4% as Hispanic, 3% as Indian, 5% as Other, and 2% left the item blank. Within this framework, we demonstrated support for (1) the psychometric/statistical properties of each scale, including (a) internal consistency and reliability, (b) component structure, (c) the relationship among the two scales, and (d) discrimination from social desirability; and (2) construct validity, as determined by (a) distinction between general psychology students who were interested in taking a women’s studies class in the future and those who were not, (b) the impact of a women’s studies class on feminist identity development, and (c) relationship of the scales to a measure of cognitive development. The authors wish to thank Richard Ashmore and Erich Labouvie for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also would like to thank the instructors of the general psychology and women’s studies classes, especially Barbara Balliet, for allowing us to recruit participants in their classes.