In a previously published commentary Villalonga Olives Kawac

In a previously published commentary (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015), we noted that bridging social capital has been measured by two approaches: either by using a non-standardized set of questions, or by attempts to construct multi-item indices. Some studies have assessed bridging capital by inquiring about people\'s participation in various kinds of civic groups with membership drawn from diverse orthopoxvirus variola of society, or by asking about the individual\'s perception of the heterogeneity of the networks to which they belong. As for studies that have attempted to construct multi-item indices of bridging social capital, we noted considerable variation on the selection of items. In this approach, bridging social capital has been assessed with questions related to multiculturalism, or interactions with diverse groups outside one\'s own (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). The underlying gap in the literature is that the studies we identified have not used standard definitions of bridging social capital. We give examples of the measurement of bridging and bonding social capital in a previous manuscript (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). For example, Williams’ questionnaire is focused on online/offline social capital and measures support of the bonding type and relationships that can be related to bridging social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Nonetheless, we observe the questions related to contact with a broad range of people are not questions related to specific relationships with equals or non equals. Chen et al. developed the Personal Social Capital Scale that aims to measure bridging and bonding social capital (Chen, Stanton, & Gong, 2009). However, we observe it is difficult to find out if the type of groups and organizations referenced by the measure of bridging and bonding social capital include people with dissimilar or similar characteristics. The Adapted Social Capital Assessment Tool (A-SCAT) by Harpham et al. attempts to distinguish between bonding, bridging and linking social capital and it is a good starting point for a scale that contains items related to bridging social capital (Harpham et al., 2002). However, we are not aware of an instrument exclusively focused on the measurement of bridging social capital. Immigrant communities confront the challenge of accessing resources beyond their own intimate circles. On the one hand, they can draw upon the dense social connections within their enclaves for information, instrumental support, and solidarity (bonding social capital). On the other hand, by staying within their communities, they remain disconnected from opportunities available to the mainstream of society. Bridging social capital is important for immigrants in order to become connected to opportunities that may facilitate upward social mobility (Lancee, 2010; Tselios, Noback, van Dijk, & McCann, 2015). In turn, the ability to access resources from outside one\'s own network is linked to better health outcomes. Consistent with this notion, in a small study of a disadvantaged minority community in Birmingham, Alabama, Mitchell and LaGory (2002) reported that high bonding social capital (measured by the strength of trust and associational ties with others of a similar racial and educational background as the respondent) was paradoxically associated with higher levels of mental distress. In the same study, however, individuals who reported social ties to others who were dissimilar to them with respect to race and class (i.e. who had access to bridging capital) were protected from mental distress (Mitchell & LaGory, 2002). Hence, bridging social capital is an important resource for the immigrant community. In the United States, one of the largest groups of immigrants are Latinos. According to the U.S. Census Bureau\'s population estimates as of July 1, 2013, there were roughly 54 million Hispanics living in the US, making people of Hispanic origin the nation\'s largest ethnic or race minority groups (CDC\'s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, 2016). The Migration Policy Institute states that in 2014 there were 55 million Hispanics in the US. Of the 55 million people who identified themselves as of Hispanic or Latino origin, 35% (19.4 million) were immigrants (Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States, 2016).