Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)

Abstract

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS) is a psychometric instrument developed by Dr. Kevin L. Nadal in 2011 to assess the incidence and frequency of subtle, covert, and interpersonal manifestations of racism experienced by people of color within the United States. While overt racial bigotry remains a systemic reality, contemporary racism frequently manifests as microaggressions: brief, commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward persons of marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Grounded in the multidimensional taxonomic framework articulated by Derald Wing Sue and colleagues, the REMS was engineered to overcome the demographic and situational limitations of preceding measurement tools, which frequently focused on single racial groups (e.g., African Americans) or specific institutional domains (e.g., higher education).

The scale consists of 45 self-report items evaluated across a six-month retrospective window. Psychometric evaluation demonstrates a robust six-factor structure comprising: (1) Assumptions of Inferiority, (2) Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality, (3) Microinvalidations, (4) Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity, (5) Environmental Microaggressions, and (6) Workplace and School Microaggressions. The measure utilizes a 6-point behavioral frequency metric ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 6 (all of the time), though dichotomous incidence scoring (experienced vs. not experienced) has also been validated. Across clinical, community, and collegiate samples, the REMS exhibits excellent internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .90, and subscale coefficients ranging from .85 to .89. Extensive construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validity analyses link REMS scores with depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety, physiological distress, racial trauma, diminished self-esteem, and racial identity development, establishing the instrument as a standard in multicultural psychology and public health research.

Keywords

Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale, REMS, Kevin L. Nadal, racial microaggressions, everyday racism, subtle discrimination, psychological distress, microinvalidations, psychometrics, multicultural counseling

Authors

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Kevin L. Nadal, Ph.D. Dr. Nadal is a distinguished professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A prominent scholar in counseling psychology, multicultural competencies, and racial and LGBTQ+ disparities, Dr. Nadal has served as the president of the Asian American Psychological Association (AAPA) and a trustee of the Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS).

Correspondence regarding the empirical development and psychometric operationalization of the REMS is historically addressed to Dr. Kevin L. Nadal at the Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019 (Email: [email protected]).

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale is to provide a psychometrically sound, standardized, and empirically validated quantitative measure capable of documenting the frequency and typologies of racial and ethnic microaggressions encountered by diverse communities of color. Historically, psychological research on racism predominantly captured overt, blatant discrimination (such as hate crimes, explicit physical threats, and legally codified segregation) using scales like the Schedule of Racist Events (SRE; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) or the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS; Williams et al., 1997). However, post-Civil Rights era sociopolitical shifts transformed racial dynamics, rendering bias more covert, ambiguous, and structural. Prior to the publication of the REMS, existing scales targeting subtle racism were either restricted to specific racial cohorts (e.g., the Index of Race-Related Stress for African Americans or the Asian American Racist Experiences Scale) or were constrained to distinct academic contexts.

The REMS was engineered to fulfill several critical objectives across scientific, educational, and clinical settings:

• Cross-Racial Applicability: Unlike ethnically isolated instruments, the REMS was standardized on heterogeneous samples comprising Black/African American, Hispanic/Latina/o, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Indigenous/Native American, and Multiracial individuals, permitting direct comparative inquiries into differential vulnerability to specific microaggressive tropes.
• Taxonomic Mapping: It operationalizes the theoretical paradigms introduced by Chester Pierce and popularized by Derald Wing Sue into empirically identifiable subcomponents, facilitating granular investigations into which specific microaggressive categories (e.g., microinvalidations vs. assumptions of criminality) exert the most severe mental health outcomes.
• Clinical and Diagnostic Assessment: In counseling and clinical psychology, the REMS equips clinicians with a structured inventory to help clients of color unpack the cumulative psychological toll—often referred to as racial trauma, minority stress, or “death by a thousand cuts”—of seemingly innocuous daily slights that contribute to chronic hyperarousal, depressive affect, somatic distress, and diminished psychological well-being.
• Institutional Diagnostics: Beyond individual-level diagnostics, the REMS functions as an institutional climate metric in corporate, educational, and healthcare environments, enabling diversity officers, organizational psychologists, and leadership teams to identify cultural blind spots, systemic microinvalidations, and environmental cues of exclusion.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the REMS is racial and ethnic microaggressions, defined as brief, daily behavioral, verbal, and environmental indignities—whether intentional or unintentional—that communicate hostile, derogatory, or dismissive racial insults and slights toward people of color. The scale divides this overarching construct into six distinctive dimensions:

1. Assumptions of Inferiority

This dimension captures incidents in which individuals of marginalized racial or ethnic backgrounds are presumed to possess inferior intellectual capability, vocational competence, educational attainment, or socioeconomic status purely as a function of their race. Examples within the scale include being perceived as uneducated (Item 21), having someone show astonishment at scholastic or professional success (Item 17), being assumed to hold a low-wage occupation (Item 36), or being surprised that an individual is “articulate” (Item 22). This subscale quantifies the persistent psychological burden of having to continually disprove stereotypes of biological or cultural deficiency.

2. Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality

This subscale assesses instances where people of color are treated with suspicion, fear, and institutional disregard, signaling that they do not enjoy equal societal standing or legal respect. It encompasses nonverbal behavioral avoidance, such as someone clutching their purse or wallet upon seeing the individual (Item 31), crossing the street to avoid walking near them (Item 6), exhibiting fearful body language (Item 2), or assuming that the individual poses an imminent physical threat (Item 34). It also accounts for interpersonal devaluation, such as receiving substandard service in commercial establishments relative to White patrons (Item 11).

3. Microinvalidations

Microinvalidations represent interactions that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, perceptions, or experiential reality of a person of color. These manifestations are commonly characterized by colorblind racial ideology, historical denial, and the gaslighting of racial trauma. Items include statements asserting that an individual “complains about race too much” (Item 10), claims of personal colorblindness (Items 7, 27, and 30), and assertions that all racial groups encounter equivalent life barriers or that racism is no longer operative (Items 14 and 26). Such microinvalidations are insidious because they attack the victim’s epistemic credibility.

4. Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity

This subscale evaluates the exoticizing, othering, and homogenizing of racial minority individuals. It measures assumptions of perpetual foreignness (e.g., refusing to believe an individual was born in the United States; Item 20), stereotypic lingual attributions (e.g., assuming a person does not speak English; Item 3), romantic or sexual objectification rooted in racial exoticism (Item 13), and outgroup homogeneity assumptions asserting that all members of a particular racial group “look alike” or act identically (Items 23 and 42).

5. Environmental Microaggressions

Environmental microaggressions encompass macro-level, systemic, and demographic absences that visually and culturally remind people of color of their subordinate or marginalized societal status. The REMS operationalizes this construct through seven items measuring the degree to which an individual observes positive representation and parity in power structures: observing people of one’s race as corporate executives (Item 18), governmental officials (Item 41), workplace supervisors (Item 12), and positive media figures across television, magazines, and cinema (Items 19, 24, 28, and 37). Because these items measure the *presence* of positive representation, they are scored such that low frequencies reflect elevated environmental exclusion.

6. Workplace and School Microaggressions

This dimension targets microaggressive dynamics situated within professional, occupational, and academic institutions. Items measure systemic ostracization and unequal treatment in formal settings, including being ignored or dismissed in work or classroom environments (Item 1), having one’s professional opinions ignored during collaborative group discussions (Item 15), experiencing overt hostility or an unwelcoming posture from colleagues or supervisors (Item 25), and being subjected to differential standards relative to White peers (Item 44).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the REMS is situated at the intersection of Critical Race Theory (CRT), social cognitive psychology, and the pioneering taxonomic paradigms of microaggressive oppression.

The Pierce and Sue Formulations

The term “microaggression” was originally coined in 1970 by Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Chester Pierce, who utilized it to describe the subtle, nonverbal, and visual mini-assaults continuously levied against African Americans by White peers. Decades later, Dr. Derald Wing Sue and colleagues (2007) formalized a comprehensive theoretical typology classifying microaggressions into three distinct operational modalities:

• Microassaults: Explicit, conscious, and derogatory racial actions, expressions, or visual displays that lack anonymity and resemble traditional overt racism, though typically enacted in private or safe settings.
• Microinsults: Subtle behavioral or verbal communications that convey rudeness, insensitivity, and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity, often occurring outside the conscious awareness of the perpetrator (e.g., implying that an individual gained employment solely through affirmative action).
• Microinvalidations: Communications that subtly exclude, negate, or nullify the experiential reality of racialized persons (e.g., colorblind statements).

Sue’s model asserted that these interpersonal interactions do not occur in a vacuum; they are reinforced by macro-level environmental microaggressions manifested via architectural symbols, institutional demographics, and media underrepresentation.

Nadal’s Expanded Conceptualization

While acknowledging Sue’s tripartite framework, Nadal (2011) identified critical gaps when attempting to construct a unified psychometric instrument. Sue’s early conceptualizations frequently drew primarily from qualitative inquiries with specific populations (such as Black and Asian American college students), occasionally conflating the psychological form of the act (insult vs. invalidation) with its specific thematic content (criminality vs. foreignness). Through rigorous qualitative coding, expert panel evaluations, and exploratory factor analyses, Nadal established that microaggressions are best captured psychometrically through thematic content domains—how the microaggression manifests experientially in the daily lives of people of color—rather than solely through perpetrator intentionality.

Minority Stress and Cumulative Harm Models

The theoretical architecture of the REMS also interfaces with the Minority Stress Theory initially postulated by Ilan Meyer and further adapted for racial minorities. This framework posits that chronic exposure to stressors rooted in prejudice and discrimination induces cognitive exhaustion, hypervigilance, and physiological wear-and-tear (allostatic load). Because microaggressions are inherently ambiguous—leaving the target to wonder, “Did this happen because of my race, or am I being paranoid?”—they generate profound attributional ambiguity, leading to cognitive rumination and elevated psychological distress.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the REMS has been documented through extensive validation studies across diverse multi-ethnic populations.

Content and Construct Validity

Content validity was established during initial scale development through a comprehensive literature review, focus group qualitative data collection with diverse racial cohorts, and expert panel reviews by distinguished scholars in multicultural psychology. An initial item pool of 142 prospective items was reviewed for clinical clarity, theoretical congruence, and non-redundancy, ultimately yielding 68 items evaluated in exploratory factor analysis, which settled into the final 45-item structure spanning six clean, theoretically coherent dimensions.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Extensive empirical investigations confirm the convergent validity of the REMS against existing metrics of racism and psychosocial well-being:

• Everyday Discrimination: REMS subscale scores demonstrate strong, statistically significant positive correlations with the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) (r values typically ranging from .52 to .68, p < .001), indicating robust alignment with generalized discrimination constructs while uniquely capturing subtle manifestations.
• Racial Trauma and Minority Stress: Scores on the REMS correlate robustly with measures of race-related trauma, race-based hypervigilance, and perceived stress inventories (e.g., the Perceived Stress Scale, r = .38 to .49, p < .01).
• Racial Identity Status: Research examining the relationship between the REMS and the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) and other racial identity measures demonstrates that individuals with higher immersion/internalization statuses report heightened awareness and reporting of microaggressions, supporting construct validity within developmental identity frameworks.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by comparing REMS scores with unrelated constructs such as social desirability, general personality traits (e.g., Extraversion and Agreeableness on the NEO-FFI), and non-race-based life stressors. Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale remain negligible and statistically non-significant (r < .10), confirming that self-reported microaggressive exposure is not merely an artifact of response bias, impression management, or generalized negative affectivity.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The REMS demonstrates predictive validity across psychological, somatic, and behavioral health metrics:

• Mental Health Outcomes: Hierarchical regression analyses consistently show that REMS scores account for unique variance in depressive symptoms (measured via the CES-D and BDI-II) and generalized anxiety symptoms (measured via the GAD-7), even after controlling for demographic variables, socioeconomic status, and overt racial discrimination.
• Physical Health Disparities: Subsequent research by Nadal, Davidoff, and colleagues (2012) revealed that cumulative microaggression scores on the REMS significantly predict somatic symptoms, sleep disturbances, chronic pain, and hypertension indicators among Latina/o, Black, and Asian American adults.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale has been demonstrated across multiple independent empirical trials involving both collegiate and community-based adult populations.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational scale construction and validation study conducted by Nadal (2011) with a national sample of people of color (N = 444), the total 45-item REMS yielded a total scale internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of α = .92, reflecting exceptional score reliability. The individual subscales demonstrated strong reliability:

• Assumptions of Inferiority: α = .894 (8 items)
• Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality: α = .883 (7 items)
• Microinvalidations: α = .888 (9 items)
• Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity: α = .852 (9 items)
• Environmental Microaggressions: α = .850 (7 items)
• Workplace and School Microaggressions: α = .850 (5 items)

Subsequent psychometric replications across diverse samples have consistently confirmed these internal consistency metrics. In a validation study with Latina/o Americans (Rivera, 2012), subscale alphas ranged from .84 to .90. Parallel empirical studies with Asian American and Multiracial adult cohorts have recorded overall reliability estimates spanning between .91 and .94.

Test-Retest Stability

Stability across temporal intervals has been supported across longitudinal investigations. Test-retest reliability across a two- to four-week interval demonstrated stability coefficients ranging from r = .78 to r = .86 across the subscales, indicating that while situational exposure varies organically over time, individual reporting of behavioral frequencies remains stable within non-interventional conditions.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the REMS was determined through iterative exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by subsequent confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) validation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the initial psychometric investigation (Nadal, 2011), the 68 candidate items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with an oblique rotation (Promax, κ = 4), based on the empirical assumption that distinct dimensions of racial microaggressions are inherently interrelated. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .91, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant (χ² [2278] = 12,418.52, p < .001), indicating the suitability of the correlation matrix for factor extraction.

Item retention was determined by conservative psychometric criteria: (a) primary factor loadings ≥ .40, (b) absence of substantial cross-loadings (defined as secondary loadings > .32 with a difference < .15 between loadings), and (c) conceptual interpretability. This iterative structural reduction eliminated 23 items, resulting in a finalized 45-item matrix resolving cleanly across six factors that collectively accounted for 53.86% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory studies tested the empirical plausibility of the hypothesized six-factor correlated model against competing structural configurations, including a single-factor unidimensional model and an orthogonal model. The six-factor correlated model demonstrated acceptable to excellent goodness-of-fit indices across diverse independent racial cohorts:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .046 to .055 (90% CI [.042, .061])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051 to .058

Bifactor modeling conducted in subsequent studies has suggested the existence of a strong general microaggression factor alongside distinct group factors, supporting the utilization of both an overall composite score and specific multidimensional subscale scores depending on the researcher’s analytical objectives.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale is a self-administered, quantitative paper-and-pencil or digital questionnaire designed to assess experiences of covert racial prejudice.

Structural Characteristics

• Test Type: Standardized Self-Report Psychometric Inventory
• Format: Digital (online survey platforms) or physical printed questionnaire
• Item Count: 45 items
• Target Population: Individuals identifying as people of color (e.g., African American/Black, Asian American, Latina/o/Hispanic, Native American/Indigenous, Multiracial) aged 18 and older; adaptations for adolescents have been explored in academic literature.
• Timeframe: Measures experiences encountered within the past six months (“In the past six months…”).
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

Response Format

The instrument is administered using a 6-point behavioral frequency response scale:

• 1 = None of the time
• 2 = A little bit of the time
• 3 = Some of the time
• 4 = A good bit of the time
• 5 = Most of the time
• 6 = All of the time

Alternative Scoring Protocol: Nadal (2011) also validated a dichotomous scoring method (0 = event did not occur in the past six months; 1 = event occurred at least once), which is frequently utilized when researchers seek an absolute count of microaggressive incident exposure.

Subscale Item Allocation

• Subscale 1: Assumptions of Inferiority (8 items): Items 5, 9, 17, 21, 22, 32, 36, and 38.
• Subscale 2: Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality (7 items): Items 2, 6, 8, 11, 31, 34, and 40.
• Subscale 3: Microinvalidations (9 items): Items 4, 7, 10, 14, 26, 27, 30, 33, and 39.
• Subscale 4: Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity (9 items): Items 3, 13, 20, 23, 29, 35, 42, 43, and 45.
• Subscale 5: Environmental Microaggressions (7 items): Items 12, 18, 19, 24, 28, 37, and 41.
• Subscale 6: Workplace and School Microaggressions (5 items): Items 1, 15, 16, 25, and 44.

Scoring and Interpretation Procedures

Subscale scores are calculated by deriving the mean or sum of items corresponding to that dimension. A total REMS composite score can be calculated by averaging across all 45 items (with Subscale 5 items reversed if quantifying overall microaggressive adversity, or evaluated independently as an environmental asset/deficit indicator). Higher scores on Subscales 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 correspond to greater experienced frequencies of racial microaggressions. On Subscale 5 (Environmental Microaggressions), items are phrased positively regarding representation (e.g., observing people of one’s race as leaders or media figures); lower scores reflect an absence of positive representation, signaling heightened environmental microaggressions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale was formally published in 2011 by Dr. Kevin L. Nadal in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (American Psychological Association). The scale items are open and accessible for non-commercial academic research, clinical education, and psychological assessment purposes, provided appropriate academic citation is maintained.

No licensing fee is required for non-funded university research, master’s theses, or doctoral dissertations. Commercial organizations, consulting entities, or funded research projects seeking to integrate the REMS into proprietary diagnostic platforms, climate surveys, or commercial interventions should contact the author directly to secure formal copyright permissions and licensing terms.

References

• Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984960222002
• Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193
• Nadal, K. L., & Davidoff, K. (2012). The impact of racial microaggressions on the physical health of people of Color. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Winter Roundtable on Cultural Psychology & Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
• Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K. E., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014). The incidence and psychological effects of racial microaggressions on people of color in the United States. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x
• Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Wills, D. (1977). An experiment in racism: TV commercials. Education and Urban Society, 10(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312457701000105
• Rivera, D. P. (2012). Microaggressions and health outcomes for Latina/o Americans: Understanding the influences of external characteristics and psychological resources (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). Columbia Academic Commons. https://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:14491
• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
• Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and bias. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305

Items of the Scale