Critical Race Framework
Critical Race Framework
Training and Bias Tool for Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy
The Critical Race Framework study is the first public health critical appraisal tool for studies that use racial taxonomy.
The tool is the copyrighted work of Dr. Christopher Williams.
Christopher Williams
Dr. Christopher Williams developed the Critical Race Framework critical appraisal tool. Dr. Williams is a visionary leader in equity leadership and transformative public health practice. As the Founding Director of Public Health Liberation, he applies transdisciplinary synthesis to address challenges in what he terms the "Public Health Economy" - an original conceptualization of structural determinants of health. Dr. Williams combines research, theory-building, and community leadership to accelerate health equity, calling for a disciplinary shift in public health.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 3, 2024
CONTACT:
criticalraceframework@gmail.com
Announcement: National Webinar on Study Results of Critical Race Framework Study
Christopher Williams, the principal investigator for the Critical Framework Study, is hosting a national webinar on July 11, 2:00pm ET to discuss study results. Seating is limited. The Critical Race Framework developed a tool and training with quality evidence for implementation effectiveness, content validity, and interrater reliability to fill a major gap in the public health literature. The study is now published here.
To register, complete the following below.
National Webinar Follow-Up
We had a wonderful session today discussing the Critical Race Framework study. The study results are available here. The brief overview covered the extensive literature review that included research theories, study methods, findings, and future directions. During the Q&A session, I elaborated on the foundational research principles related to reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity. Race inherently poses salient threats to research quality in all of these areas.
We were joined by public health experts who are advancing health equity in their research and practice. Our discussion touched upon the public health economy, drawbacks in peer-reviewed research access and review quality, translational research for intervention planning and intersectionality, and medicalization of public health.
Our session was not recorded. Registrants can request a presentation at their organization.
If you are interested in participating in additional expert-testing of the CR Framework, please let me know. Thanks, again!
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 22, 2024
MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Communications
criticalraceframework@gmail.com
The Lancet's Guidelines for Race in Research Are Misguided
Christopher Williams, the principal investigator for the Critical Framework Study, has released a statement on The Lancet's new guidelines on race reporting in research.
The Lancet Group's recommendations fall short of squaring this issue with scientific and statistical reasoning. They do not address the inherent threats that race poses to our research such as using race as a proxy for racism. If racism is the underlying theoretical construct or explanation, then, in fact, most studies are using inappropriate statistical tests and inadequate measurements. The estimates are thus unreliable. The belief in race is just that - a belief. Race is a social construct but not even a good one - no common history, culture, language, or religion within any group to include the two new races that have been added. The recommendations also suggest confusion about race and ethnicity. African Americans who share an origin story of US slavery are not, in fact, a race. We never have been. Our early history in the US shows how diverse we were in religion, language, and customs. African Americans who are descendants of US enslaved families are a US-based cluster ethnic group with a high degree of diversity, but the anachronistic lens of global races biases our views to the contrary. There is a strong conviction, doctrinally so, in this country, in particular, about global races. That belief system exists in few places in this world. Rather than pretend away human diversity, we need to evolve our science around it. We can claim that there are 11,000 different species of birds, but seven human races for 8 billion people on which to base our science. That is putting old-world ideology over scientific reasoning.
My dissertation study findings are forthcoming after publication in ProQuest. The abstract has been released. I delve into the scientific arguments, including statistical theory, to support these positions and provide a critical appraisal tool for studies that use race. I am expecting publication this summer.
Sincerely,
Chris Williams, PhD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 18, 2024
MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Communications
criticalraceframework@gmail.com
Abstract for Critical Race Framework Study Released
Christopher Williams, the principal investigator for the Critical Framework Study, has released the abstract of his dissertation findings. Entitled The Critical Race Framework Study: Standardizing Critical Evaluation for Research Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy, the full study is expected to be released in summer 2024 following ProQuest publication.
Abstract
Race is one of the most common variables in public health surveillance and research. Yet, studies involving racial measures show poor conceptual clarity and inconsistent operational definitions. There does not exist a bias tool in the public health literature for structured qualitative evaluation in critical areas of critical appraisal – reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity – for studies that use racial taxonomy. This study developed the Critical Race (CR) Framework to address a major gap in the literature.
The study involved three iterative phases to answer five research questions (RQs). Phase I was a pilot study of the CR Framework among public health faculty and doctoral students to assess measures of fit (RQ1) and to identify areas of improvement in training, instrumentation, and study design (RQ2). Study participants received training and performed a single article evaluation. Phase II was a national cross-sectional study of public health experts to assess perceptions of the revised training and tool to assess measures of fit (RQ1), to determine the influence of demographic and research factors on perceptions (RQ3), and to gather validity evidence on constructs (RQ4). In Phase III, three raters performed article evaluations to support reliability evidence (RQ4) and to determine the quality of health disparities and behavioral health research studies against the CR Framework (RQ5).
We assessed the reliability of study results and the CR Framework using non-differentiation analysis, thematic analysis, missingness analysis, user data, measures of internal consistency for adopted instruments, interrater agreement, and interrater reliability. Validity was assessed using content validity (CVI and k*), construct validity, and exploratory factor analyses (EFA). The study recruited 30 highly skilled public health experts across its three phases as part of the final analytic sample. Phase I had poor reliability in which the results could not be confidently interpreted (RQ1) and indicated needed improvement in study design, training, and instrumentation (RQ2).
Based on Phase II results, we met or exceeded acceptable thresholds for measures of fit – acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and satisfaction (RQ1). Demographic or research factors were not associated with CRF responses (RQ3). Interrater agreement was moderate to high among rater pairs (RQ4). Due to lack of confidence in significance testing, interrater reliability results were inconclusive. Overall data results showed excellent content validity. Based on EFA results, construct validity for reliability and validity items was poor to fair (RQ4). Data results were inconclusive on internal validity and external validity. The twenty studies used in critical appraisal showed low quality or no discussion when the Critical Race Framework was used (RQ5).
The Critical Race Framework developed a tool and training with quality evidence for implementation effectiveness, content validity, and interrater reliability to fill a major gap in the public health literature. It contributed an innovative theory-based tool and training to the literature. Future research should seek to study individual perceptions and practices that influence outcomes of CRF application and to reduce barriers to ensure that minimum sample sizes can be met for additional testing.
Race is one of the most common variables in public health surveillance and research. Yet, studies involving racial measures show poor conceptual clarity and inconsistent operational definitions. Despite these and other threats to scientific quality, there does not exist a systematic approach for critiquing a given study. The Critical Race Framework is an innovative critical appraisal tool for public health training, research, and practice. It is currently under development and is expected to be released in 2024. The CR Framework is the copyrighted work of Christopher Williams.