Asset-Based Identities Measure

1. Abstract

The Asset-Based Identities Measure (ABIM) (López et al., 2024) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report instrument engineered to assess students' classroom-level perceptions in direct alignment with asset-based pedagogy (ABP). Grounded in the premise that historical educational inequities stem from pervasive deficit orientations toward minoritized youth, the ABIM intentionally operationalizes how classroom environments affirm students' cultural, racial, linguistic, and intellectual resources. Built under the prescriptive psychometric guidelines of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) and structured through Michael Kane's (2013) argument-based approach to validation, the measure captures daily or session-specific student appraisals of instructional practices and psychological safety.

The final instrument comprises 21 items organized into three distinct yet interrelated latent dimensions: Belonging (8 items), Competence and Task Value (4 items), and Intersectional Identities (9 items). Participants evaluate their immediate classroom experience utilizing a state-sensitive stem ("In today’s class…") alongside a 9-point bipolar Likert-type scale spanning from -4 (Strongly Disagree) through 0 (Neutral/Neither Agree nor Disagree) to +4 (Strongly Agree). Empirical evaluation with diverse urban K-12 student cohorts demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across the composite scale (α = .94) and within individual subscales (α = .90 for Belonging, α = .84 for Intersectional Identities, and α = .77 for Competence and Task Value). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrates that the hypothesized three-factor oblique structural model offers superior fit compared to competing unidimensional representations, confirming that belongingness, academic efficacy, and intersectional cultural affirmation operate as synergistic yet functionally separable psychological phenomena. The ABIM serves as a formative assessment apparatus capable of centering student voices to dynamically guide equity-oriented instructional modifications in contemporary urban school environments.

2. Keywords

Asset-Based Identities Measure, Asset-Based Pedagogy, Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, Intersectional Identities, Classroom Belonging, Academic Competence, Task Value, Minoritized Students, Argument-Based Validation, Student Voice, Formative Assessment, Educational Psychometrics.

3. Authors

The Asset-Based Identities Measure was formulated, operationalized, and psychometrically validated through an interdisciplinary university-district research-practice partnership comprising scholars in educational psychology, special education, methodology, and district-level educational leadership:

• Francesca López, Ph.D. – Professor of Education and Waterbury Chair in Equity Pedagogy, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
• DeLeon Gray, Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and Equity, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
• Mildred Boveda, Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Education, Department of Education Policy Studies, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
• Dynah Oviedo, M.Ed. – Research and Evaluation Specialist, Tucson Unified School District, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
• Nilam Ram, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology and Communication, Departments of Psychology and Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA (ORCID: 0000-0003-1671-5257).
• Lorenzo López, M.A. – Educational Administrator and Leadership Specialist, Tucson Unified School District, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Asset-Based Identities Measure is to resolve a critical structural shortcoming in conventional educational measurement: the reliance on standardized, deficit-oriented accountability metrics that obscure students' daily phenomenological realities. Historically, research and assessment tools in educational psychology have located educational disparities within students themselves, their families, or their cultural heritage—pathologizing minoritized children rather than examining how institutional practices, classroom climates, and pedagogy fail to sustain them. The ABIM directly counters this paradigm by shifting the empirical lens from student "deficits" to the equity-affirming quality of instructional environments, centering student self-report as the ultimate diagnostic indicator of asset-based teaching practices.

From an applied educational standpoint, the ABIM is formulated as a short-cycle formative assessment mechanism. Rather than functioning as a high-stakes, summative judgment of teacher efficacy, the tool gathers micro-level student feedback regarding daily classroom dynamics. By incorporating the prompt "In today’s class…", the measure captures day-to-day fluctuations in instruction, curriculum content, and relational interactions. This allows educators, instructional coaches, and building administrators to monitor whether intentional shifts in lesson planning—such as integrating multimodal cultural artifacts, encouraging multilingual discourse, or providing targeted scaffolding—systematically elevate minoritized students' psychological safety, academic self-concept, and cultural affirmation. Teachers obtain near-real-time actionable data indicating precisely which dimensions of asset-based instruction require reinforcement.

In research contexts, the ABIM addresses the persistent operationalization challenge surrounding asset-based pedagogy, culturally relevant pedagogy, and culturally sustaining pedagogy. While theoretical treatises defending cultural affirmation have proliferated for decades, empirical studies examining how these instructional practices affect psychological and academic outcomes have frequently suffered from imprecise or non-standardized measures. The ABIM equips researchers with a psychometrically validated, multidimensional instrument that connects fine-grained classroom pedagogical indicators to broader educational trajectories, identity construction models, and sociocognitive engagement metrics.

5. Psychological Construct

The Asset-Based Identities Measure assesses a multidimensional psychological construct that reflects students' appraisal of classroom conditions that honor, affirm, and scaffold their cultural identities, academic competencies, and socioemotional integration. These dimensions reflect a pedagogical microsystem wherein academic learning and cultural affirmation are structurally inseparable:

1. Belonging (8 Items)

Classroom belonging within the ABIM represents an affective and relational state wherein students experience subjective psychological safety, institutional acceptance, and interpersonal care within the learning microclimate. Far exceeding passive physical presence, asset-based belonging involves instructional conditions where teachers explicitly communicate interpersonal warmth, solicit student voices, respect student intellect, and scaffold cognitive struggle without stigma. Items within this subscale examine whether students perceive that teacher feedback is constructive and expectations-oriented (e.g., "The feedback my teacher gave me helped me meet expectations"), whether pedagogical content interfaces directly with students' community realities (e.g., "My teacher connected what we learned with my life outside of school"), and whether the educator creates a caring safety net during periods of emotional or academic distress (e.g., "My teacher tried to help me when I was struggling, sad, worried, angry, upset, or frustrated"). Belonging functions as the foundational relational bedrock upon which complex cognitive engagement and vulnerability depend.

2. Competence and Task Value (4 Items)

Synthesizing core constructs from self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory, this dimension assesses the child's perception of academic efficacy, mastery, task interest, and perceived utility within the immediate instructional setting. The construct posits that academic competence cannot be isolated from task significance: minoritized students must feel both capable of mastering instructional demands and confident that the content holds authentic personal value. Items capture self-referenced performance appraisal (e.g., "I did well"), intrinsic enjoyment (e.g., "I enjoyed the work I did"), domain interest (e.g., "I was interested in the material we covered"), and external utility value (e.g., "We learned things that matter to my life"). High scores on this factor reflect a classroom context wherein rigorous academic demands are paired with scaffolding that empowers genuine cognitive mastery.

3. Intersectional Identities (9 Items)

The Intersectional Identities subscale is the core theoretical innovation of the ABIM, explicitly operationalizing how classroom pedagogical practices affirm overlapping, multifaceted social identities—specifically along the axes of race, ethnicity, language, gender, and home cultures. Departing from conventional color-evasive or unidimensional identity models, this construct gauges the active presence of culturally sustaining pedagogical interventions. The items query whether instructional content stimulates positive racial-ethnic identity (e.g., "I felt positively about my race/ethnicity"; "The material taught me about my race/ethnicity"), illuminates counter-stereotypical cultural excellence (e.g., "I saw examples of smart people from my ethnic background"), and actively legitimizes linguistic plurality (e.g., "People spoke multiple languages"). Furthermore, the construct interrogates structural fairness across gender categories (e.g., "Students of all genders were treated fairly") and bridges home cultural funds of knowledge with academic content while facilitating cross-cultural peer learning (e.g., "The material connected to my home life experience"; "I learned from someone with a different home life experience than mine").

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the ABIM synthesizes several foundational frameworks from critical education, sociocognitive psychology, and modern educational measurement:

Culturally Relevant and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy

The ABIM is fundamentally rooted in Gloria Ladson-Billings's (1995) foundational model of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) and its evolution into Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) articulated by Django Paris and H. Samy Alim (2014, 2017). Ladson-Billings established that empowering education for minoritized children rests upon three pillars: academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. Paris and Alim extended this imperative, arguing that pedagogies must not merely "respond" or "be relevant" to youth cultures, but must actively sustain, nurture, and revitalize multilingual, multicultural practices in the face of systemic assimilationist pressures. The ABIM operationalizes these concepts into quantifiable psychological items, verifying whether students encounter instruction that preserves and honors their cultural assets rather than treating them as barriers to assimilation.

Critical Race Theory and Intersectional Competence

The measure is deeply informed by Critical Race Theory (CRT) in education and Kimberlé Crenshaw's (1989, 1991) paradigm of intersectionality, alongside Mildred Boveda's conceptualizations of intersectional competence in teacher education. Intersectional theory highlights that human beings do not experience their identities in segregated compartments; rather, systems of race, social class, gender identity, and linguistic background dynamically converge to configure unique classroom lived experiences. Deficit-based schooling routinely isolates or invalidates intersecting identities, subjecting minoritized students to multidimensional microaggressions. By integrating race, language, gender equity, and home culture into an integrated subscale, the ABIM rejects single-axis approaches to equity in favor of an intersectional lens.

Sociocognitive Motivation Theories

The operationalization of the Competence and Task Value and Belonging subscales is anchored in Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Self-Determination Theory posits that intrinsic motivation, deep learning, and psychological flourishing require satisfying three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Concurrently, Expectancy-Value Theory demonstrates that students engage deeply in learning tasks when they anticipate success (expectancy) and perceive the content as personally meaningful, interesting, and useful (task value). The ABIM posits that asset-based instructional practices provide the environmental supports necessary to fulfill these fundamental motivational imperatives.

Kane's Argument-Based Approach to Validity

To substantiate the scientific integrity of the tool, the development team utilized Michael Kane's (2013) argument-based framework for test validation. Kane's formulation demands that validity is treated not as a static property of a test, but as a chain of coherent inferences—from observation to scoring, from scoring to generalization, from generalization to extrapolation, and finally to pedagogical implications. Following this framework and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014), the instrument was systematically tested to guarantee that student scores accurately reflect real differences in classroom equity practices rather than measurement artifacts.

7. Validity

The empirical validation of the ABIM, detailed by López et al. (2024), established comprehensive evidence supporting multiple validity arguments across diverse urban student populations:

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

Construct validity was demonstrated by evaluating whether students from historically minoritized backgrounds experienced the measure in a manner consistent with asset-based pedagogical theory. In a large-scale administration across elementary, middle, and high schools in Tucson Unified School District (an urban Southwestern district serving predominantly Latinx, Native American, and Multiracial students), Latinx and Multiracial students demonstrated significantly higher levels of agreement on the Intersectional Identities and Belonging subscales when teachers engaged in documented culturally sustaining pedagogical interventions. Because asset-based pedagogy explicitly targets the validation of minoritized cultural lifeways, these significant group-level differences provided strong construct validity evidence, confirming the scale's sensitivity to equity-oriented pedagogical practices.

Internal Structure Validity

Evidence based on internal test structure was rigorously derived through comparative Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Evaluating rival structural configurations demonstrated that treating asset-based identities as a multifaceted construct yields superior psychometric properties compared to a generalized unidimensional perspective. The items exhibited robust, statistically significant factor loadings on their designated latent factors, with absence of cross-loadings or structural misspecifications, confirming that Belonging, Competence and Task Value, and Intersectional Identities maintain clear operational distinctiveness while contributing to an overarching equity climate construct.

Content and Response Process Validity

Content validity was established through systematic expert review panels consisting of national authorities in culturally sustaining pedagogy, critical race methodology, educational psychology, and practicing urban K-12 master educators. These panels iteratively refined item phrasing to ensure full alignment with asset-based theory and developmental appropriateness across K-12 reading levels. Response process validity was verified using student cognitive interviews and pilot debriefs, confirming that students accurately comprehended the -4 to +4 bipolar rating metric and interpreted items as reflections of the day's specific instructional practices rather than general global traits.

8. Reliability

The Asset-Based Identities Measure exhibits high internal consistency reliability across the composite instrument and its individual dimensions, as evidenced by classical psychometric testing:

• Full Composite Scale (21 Items): Demonstrated an exceptional Cronbach's alpha of α = .94, confirming cohesive structural variance across the entire measurement model.
• Belonging Subscale (8 Items): Achieved a high reliability coefficient of α = .90. Item-total psychometric analyses confirmed that no item removal would yield an increase in the internal consistency coefficient, establishing the utility of all 8 indicators.
• Intersectional Identities Subscale (9 Items): Produced an internal consistency estimate of α = .84. Similar to the Belonging factor, deletion of any single item failed to improve the alpha parameter, verifying the functional contribution of the 9 culturally sustaining indicators.
• Competence and Task Value Subscale (4 Items): Exhibited a satisfactory internal consistency reliability of α = .77. Given that reliability coefficients are mathematically sensitive to scale length, achieving an alpha approaching .80 with merely four items underscores the high shared variance among these indicators; removal of any single item significantly degraded the coefficient.

Furthermore, standard error of measurement (SEM) values were uniformly low across subscales, and inter-item correlations fell within the psychometrically ideal range of .35 to .65, signaling high construct convergence without problematic collinearity or item redundancy.

9. Factor Analysis

To substantiate the internal structural validity of the ABIM, López et al. (2024) conducted extensive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using robust maximum likelihood estimation, explicitly comparing a hypothesized three-factor oblique model against a rival unidimensional (single-factor) model.

Model Fit Comparison

Fit Statistic / Metric	Hypothesized Three-Factor Model	Competing One-Factor Model	Interpretation
Chi-Square (χ²)	χ²(186) = 1109.18, p < .001	χ²(210) = 9195.55, p < .001	Three-factor model exhibits massive reduction in discrepancy
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	0.90	0.39	Unidimensional model completely fails (CFI << .90)
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)	0.88	0.36	Acceptable parsimonious baseline for three-factor structure
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	0.08	0.19	Three-factor falls within acceptable error; one-factor unacceptable
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)	0.05	0.38	SRMR ≤ .05 indicates good residual correlation modeling
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)	71,764.73	76,326.85	ΔAIC > 4,500 decisively favors the three-factor model

Structural Implications

The comparative CFA findings indicate that while all 21 items are tied together by asset-based educational principles, they cannot be simplified into a single undifferentiated "good teaching" factor. The single-factor model suffered catastrophic failure across all standard goodness-of-fit metrics (CFI = .39, TLI = .36, SRMR = .38, RMSEA = .19). In contrast, the three-factor oblique model demonstrated good overall fit with the data (SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .90, AIC = 71,764.73), establishing that students clearly distinguish between feelings of belonging, their sense of competence and interest, and the affirmation of their intersectional identities.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Formal Tool Title: Asset-Based Identities Measure (ABIM)
• Author Team: Francesca López, DeLeon Gray, Mildred Boveda, Dynah Oviedo, Nilam Ram, and Lorenzo López (2024)
• Assessment Type: Formative classroom climate inventory; student-voice perception rating scale
• Target Population: K-12 students (Childhood, School-Age, and Adolescence; approximately grades 3 through 12)
• Total Item Count: 21 items
• Dimensional Structure:
  • Belonging: 8 items
  • Competence and Task Value: 4 items
  • Intersectional Identities: 9 items
• Temporal Framing Stem: All items are preceded by the localized prompt: "In today’s class…"
• Response Format: 9-point bipolar Likert-type scale scored continuously from -4 to +4:
  • -4 = Strongly Disagree
  • -3 = Disagree
  • -2 = Moderately Disagree
  • -1 = Slightly Disagree
  • 0 = Neutral / Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • +1 = Slightly Agree
  • +2 = Moderately Agree
  • +3 = Agree
  • +4 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, tablet-based digital survey, or learning-management-system embedded exit slip
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of items belonging to each factor (Belonging mean across 8 items, Competence mean across 4 items, Intersectionality mean across 9 items), preserving the intuitive -4 to +4 interpretive scale.
  • Composite Score: The overall asset-based classroom climate score can be computed as the grand mean across all 21 items.
  • Item Directionality: All 21 items are positively keyed toward asset-based practices; no reverse scoring is required. Positive values (> 0) represent affirmative asset-based experiences, while negative values (< 0) identify classroom environments characterized by perceived alienation, low relevance, or cultural invalidation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Asset-Based Identities Measure was officially published and released into educational science in 2024 through the peer-reviewed empirical publication by López and colleagues in the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. The measure was engineered under university-district public partnership grants aimed at educational equity improvement. The 21 items are published within the primary research literature for educational, scholarly, and non-commercial school improvement purposes. School districts, academic researchers, and educators may utilize the items under fair use guidelines, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are accorded to the author team (López et al., 2024). Commercial reproduction, software distribution for profit, or proprietary repackaging requires formal copyright permissions from Sage Publications and the corresponding authors.

12. References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Boveda, M., & Aronson, B. (2019). Special education preservice teachers, intersectional competence, and the call for culturally sustaining pedago-gical practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419830321

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). What does the psychology of education have to say about Black students and other students of color? Promoting affirmative development in academic spaces. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1446222

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

López, F., Gray, D., Boveda, M., Oviedo, D., Ram, N., & López, L. (2024). Centering student voice to inform teacher practice and research: Validation of an asset-based identities measure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 42(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829231216778

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

13. Items of the Scale