Invited Commentary: The Need for Repeated Measures and Other Methodological Considerations When Investigating Discrimination as a Contributor to Health.

To determine potential measurement error related to the assessment of lifetime discrimination, Van Dyke et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(3):370-378) investigated inconsistencies in reporting of racial, socioeconomic status, and sex discrimination over time among Black and White adults enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. The authors found that "ever" reports of discrimination (as assessed by the Experiences of Discrimination Scale) decreased over time and that populations who most experience discrimination (i.e., Black/African-American people, younger persons, persons of low socioeconomic status, and women) were often also the most likely to inconsistently report discrimination over the course of the study period (from 1992 to 2010). The authors have raised an important issue related to the potential underestimation of lifetime discrimination that may depend on when discrimination is assessed, as well as the social identity of individuals surveyed. With implications for health inequities, these findings highlight study design and methodological issues that should be addressed to accurately estimate the true burden discrimination places on health. In this commentary, we further illuminate potential methodological challenges and opportunities to consider when investigating the impact of discrimination on health. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2021. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.