Printer Friendly

Uses of the "comfort with sexual matters for young adolescents" scale: a measure of erotophobia-erotophilia for youth.

Abstract: The need to assess erotophobia-erotophilia with young adolescents arose during the evaluation of Girl Time: Healthy Sexuality Program for Grade 7/8 Girls (Brunk et al., 2008; Rye et al., 2008). Program participation and achievement of desired outcomes depended on a level of comfort with sexuality. The Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) (Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley 1988; Rye, Meaney, & Fisher, 2011) was not appropriate and a shorter, 6-item measure, the Comfort with Sexual Matters for Young Adolescents scale (CWSMYA) was developed. Based on the SOS, the CWSMYA scale used simpler language and excluded content that might not be understood by younger adolescents. This article presents data about the CWSMYA scale from the outcome evaluation of Girl Time and from a survey completed by university students that contained both the CWSMYA scale and the SOS. Results indicated that the CWSMYA scale is a sufficiently reliable measure of erotophobia-erotophilia that correlates well with the SOS. The CWSMYA scale is recommended for assessing erotophobia-erotophilia with younger adolescents. Practical problems include the difficulty young participants had understanding some terms and community concerns about using an explicit instrument in schools.

Introduction

Erotophobia-erotophilia is a disposition to respond to sexual stimuli with negative-to-positive affect and evaluation and is believed to determine approach or avoidance with regard to sexual stimuli. The Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) (Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, 1988; Rye, Meaney, & Fisher, 2011) was designed to measure erotophobiaerotophilia in response to a variety of sexual stimuli (i.e., autosexual, homosexual, heterosexual behaviour; sexual fantasy; visual sexual stimuli). Previous research using the SOS has shown that erotophobia-erotophilia is predictive of a variety of sexual attitudes and behaviours, including subjective sexual arousal (Nobre et al., 2004), sexual arousal and anxiety and, indirectly, sexual self-schema (Cyranowski &Anderson, 1998), self-reported sexual behaviour, i.e., masturbation, multiple partners, unprotected sex (Durant, Carey, & Schroder, 2002), and implicit sexual attitudes (Geer & Robertson, 2005) (for an extensive review see Rye et al., 2011). There are many sexual health consequences of erotophobia-erotophilia, including impact on condom use (Saunders et al., 2006) and learning and teaching about sexuality (Fisher, Grenier, Watters, Lamont, Cohen, & Askwith, 1988; Gerrard, Kurylo, & Reis, 1991; Herbenick, Reece, & Hollub, 2009). Erotophobia-erotophilia is thought to function at both the cognitively deliberate level and the subconsciously automatic levels (e.g., Macapagal & Janssen, 2011). In general, men tend to report higher levels of erotophilia than women although relatively erotophobic or erotophilic women and men generally respond to sexual content in a similar manner (Rye et al., 2011). In other words, the gender difference in erotophobia-erotophilia is one of degree, not one of kind. It should be noted that practically all research involving the SOS has been conducted with emerging adult or adult participants.

During development of an outcome evaluation for Girl Time: Healthy Sexuality Program for Grade 7/8 Girls (Girl Time; Rye et al., 2008), it became apparent that a measure of erotophobia-erotophilia for young adolescents was needed for such an evaluation. Girl Time is an intensive sexual health education program that aims to "[encourage] young girls to (a) delay sexual activity until they are mature enough, and (b) practice safer sex when they engage in sexual activity" (Rye et al., 2008, p. 16). A measure of erotophobia-erotophilia was needed because: (a) sexual topics were discussed frankly throughout the program; and (b) it was intended that program participants would deal with their sexuality in a positive manner following program completion (for further details about Girl Time see Brunk et al., 2008). Because erotophobia-erotophilia is a sex-related affective and evaluative personality dimension, we anticipated that a measure comparable to the SOS would be a useful in determining the responses of Girl Time participants to the program content and in reinforcing a longer-lasting effect of the lessons learned. However, we concluded that the language and ideas conveyed in the SOS were age-inappropriate for Grade 7 and Grade 8 girls and that the 21-item SOS was simply too long to include in a large questionnaire for Girl Time evaluation. Instead, we developed the 6-item Comfort With Sexual Matters for Young Adults scale (CWSMYA) using simplified language and less complex content while remaining conceptually based on the SOS.

The present study

This article presents normative and psychometric data for the CWSMYA scale obtained from Grade 7 and Grade 8 girls who participated in the Girl Time outcome evaluation. Additionally, we present psychometric data from a survey in which a sample of younger university students completed both the CWSMYA scale and the SOS to help validate the former as a measure of erotophobia-erotophilia. Although establishing the validity of the CWSMYA scale as a measure of erotophobia--erotophilia was beyond the scope of the Girl Time evaluation, it was expected that the CWSMYA scale would provide a reliable test of the construct that correlated strongly with the SOS.

Methods

Data for the current report were obtained from two separate sources: (1) the original use of the CWSMYA scale in the outcome evaluation of Girl Time; and (2) a later survey completed by students enrolled in a first-year psychology course. Methods for the two groups are presented separately.

Girl-Time sample

Participants

Participants were 883 girls, 274 of whom took part in the Girl Time program ("program girls") and 609 of whom served as a non-intervention control group ("comparison girls") for the outcome evaluation of Girl Time (Rye et al., 2008). Mean age of participants was 12.5 years at program commencement.

Procedure

Participants completed a questionnaire containing a variety of measures--the last of which was the CWSMYA scale--at four rime points: Time 1: Baseline measures were taken immediately prior to Girl Time commencement; Time 2: Two to three months post-baseline after Girl Time delivery; Time 3: Ten to 12 months post-baseline; and Time 4:13-14 months post-baseline. Further details concerning the sample, evaluation procedure, and results can be found in Rye. et al. (2008). This study received approval from three ethical review boards: a university ethics board, the school board ethics review committee, and the public health ethics review board.

Instrument

The CWSMYA scale is a six-item measure conceptually based on the SOS. Ideally, we would have liked to have created a large pool of items and to have chosen the psychometrically best of those items. However, the rime line of the project necessitated few items and immediate scale development. Consequently, the research team crafted six items based on a conceptual understanding of erotophobia-erotophilia and on experience and expertise with adolescents and adolescent sexuality. The items were: (1) "It is not OK for a person to have more than one sex partner during their lifetime."; (2) It is OK for a person to masturbate if it makes him/her feel good."; (3) "It is OK for two men to have sex with each other or two women to have sex with each other."; (4) "It is not OK for people to have sexual intercourse unless they are in a committed relationship."; (5) "It is OK to enjoy being sexually aroused (turned on) by a sexy story, picture or movie."; and (6) "Oral sex is disgusting to me." Participants indicated agreement/ disagreement with each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Some items were reverse scored so that higher scores on all items indicated higher erotophilia. The Girl-Time participants also completed a large number of measures pertaining (directly or indirectly) to sexual health (see Rye et al., 2008, for a full description of each measure); these additional measures were used to assess construct validity in the current study.

University student sample

Participants

Participants were 55 students (39 female, 11 male, 5 gender unreported) enrolled in an Introductory Psychology course at a small university in southern Ontario. All university student participants were between 18 and 20 years of age (M = 18 years, SD < 1 year); mean ages of men and women were not significantly different (t (48) = 1.15, ns).

Procedure

An investigator presented the study at the beginning of a class and asked for volunteers to complete a short survey of attitudes toward a variety of sexual matters. It was explained that participation was voluntary, no compensation would be given, completion of the survey implied informed consent, and that participation (or lack of participation) would have no influence on course evaluation. Those who volunteered were given a survey to complete, with the stipulation that participants were no older than 20 years. No identifying information was recorded on the survey and all data were collected in a manner to ensure the anonymity of participants. This survey received ethical approval from the university ethics review board.

Instrument

The questionnaire consisted of a 27-item survey called the Sexual Attitudes Survey, a composite of the 21-item SOS (sample item: "Engaging in group sex is an entertaining idea") and the 6-item CWSMYA scale. The items were presented without any explicit division. Participants responded to items on both measures using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly disagree (1), Moderately disagree (2), Slightly disagree (3), In between (4), Slightly agree (5), Moderately agree (6), and Strongly agree (7); some items on each scale were reverse scored so that higher scores on all items indicated higher erotophilia. A final score for each scale was calculated by averaging scores on the individual items. Previous research has found high reliability for the SOS (Cronbach's [alpha] = .76 to .89; Rye et al., 2011).

Results

Girl Time sample results

Frequency distribution

The overall shape of the frequency distributions of CWSMYA scale scores was similar for program girls at all four time points and for comparison girls at all four time points. Figure 1 shows the frequency distributions collapsed across time points. Scores were distributed normally around the midpoint of the scale for both program girls (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: df = 270, statistic = .04, ns; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 270, statistic = 1.00, ns) and comparison girls (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: df = 592, statistic = .04, p < .05; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 592, statistic = 1.00, ns), suggesting that the CWSMYA scale provides a good spread of scores and is appropriate for use with statistical procedures that assume normally distributed data (i.e., most parametric tests).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Normative data

Means and standard deviations for the CWSMYA scale for program and comparison girls are shown in the upper portion of Table 1. Both program and comparison girls scored close to the midpoint of the scale at all time points, but tended to become more comfortable with sexual matters over time; this trend was somewhat more pronounced for program girls than for comparison girls as would be expected over the course of a sexual education program (see Rye et al., 2008 for statistical analysis). Standard deviations were consistent across time and groups, allowing for comparisons.

Internal consistency

Internal consistency was adequate at each of the four time points for both program girls and comparison girls (see Table 2; average Cronbach's [alpha] = .66; average inter-item correlation = .25). Test-retest reliability was modest across time periods (see Table 3; average test-retest r = .57). Additionally, the Girl rime evaluation found that both program and comparison girls became more comfortable with sexual matters over time (an expected effect of maturation) and that program girls were more comfortable with sexual matters than comparison girls at every time point post-baseline (Rye et al., 2008)--again, demonstrating that the scale is sensitive to an intervention that should affect erotophobia-erotophilia.

External validity

Correlations between the CWSMYA scale and other constructs used in the Girl Time evaluation tended to fall in the low-to-moderate range for both program girls and comparison girls (see Table 4). Weak-to-moderate correlations (e.g., r=.20-.30 is a weak-to-moderate correlation; such as the correlation between the CWSMYA and sexual attitudes) were generally found between the CWSMYA scale and measures of constructs more directly related to sexuality (e.g., behavioural intentions, costs of intercourse, benefits of intercourse), although there were some notable exceptions (e.g., sexual health knowledge). Very weak correlations (i.e., r<.20 is a weak-to-negligible correlation; such as the correlation between the CWSMYA and self-esteem) were found between the CWSMYA scale and constructs less directly related to sexuality (e.g., parent communication, family functioning, sense of school membership). In general, correlations did not differ between program and comparison girls; nor did they differ over time periods. These results provide some initial evidence for the construct validity of the CWSMYA scale as a measure of erotophobia-erotophilia.

University student sample results

Frequency distribution

Frequency distributions for the CWSMYA scale as completed by university students are shown in Figure 2. Scores were normally distributed around the mean for men (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: df = 11, statistic =. 14, ns; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 11, statistic = .95, ns) and for women (Kolmogorov-Smirnov: df = 39, statistic = .14, ns; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 39, statistic = .89,p < .001). However, a restricted range was apparent for both men (range = 5.00 to 7.00) and women (range = 3.00 to 7.00). These results suggest that the CWSMYA scale is appropriate for use with statistical tests that assume normally distributed data (i.e., most parametric tests), but may not be an ideal measure of erotophobia-erotophilia for university students (i.e., the range of scores is too small).

A greater range of scores was found on the SOS for both men (range = 3.71 to 6.14) and women (range = 1.81 to 6.14; see Figure 3). Scores were normally distributed around the mean for both men (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: df = 11, statistic =. 14, ns; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 11, statistic = .96, ns) and women (Kolmogorov-Smimov test: df = 39, statistic =. 11, ns; Shapiro-Wilk: df = 39, statistic = .97, ns). This suggests that the SOS resulted in a wider range ofscores with university students than did the CWSMYA scale. While both tests resulted in normally distributed data, the SOS is probably a more appropriate instrument for use with university students.

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the university student sample on individual items of the CWSMYA scale are shown in Table 5; men tended to be strongly erotophilic on individual items, while women tended to be moderately erotophilic on individual items. Means and standard deviations for the CWSMYA scale and the SOS are shown in Table 1. University students tended to be somewhat erotophilic on both scales, but scored significantly higher (i.e., more erotophilic) on the CWSMYA scale than on the SOS (paired samples t test: t(54) = 11.77, p < .001).

Internal consistency

High internal consistency was found for both the SOS (Cronbach's [alpha] = .85) and the CWSMYA scale (Cronbach's [alpha] = .85). The two scales were strongly correlated (r = . 74, p <. 001, n = 55), providing some evidence that they measure the same underlying construct. However, previous research using the SOS has found a consistent gender difference in erotophobia-erotophilia (see Rye et al., 2011); this difference was found in our study on the SOS (t(48) = 2.63, p < .01), but not on the CWSMYA scale (t(48) = 1.00, ns). However, the low n (particularly for men) needs to be kept in mind when interpreting these gender difference tests.

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that the CWSMYA scale is a moderately reliable measure of erotophobia-erotophilia that correlates sufficiently well with the SOS (the standard measure of the construct) and somewhat well with measures of other sexuality-related constructs. However, the correlation between the CWSMYA scale and the SOS is somewhat lower than would be expected with measures of the same construct; this may be due to the necessary simplification of the sexual concepts involved. Revising the SOS for use with young adolescents often required replacing very explicit scenarios (e.g., it would be emotionally upsetting to me to see someone exposing themselves publicly) with less explicit items (e.g., it is not OK for a person to have more than one sex partner during their lifetime). The intent in rewording the items was to create an age-appropriate measure, but the meaning of the items may have changed along with the language.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Differences in the content of the two scales, however, may explain why we found no gender differences in the CWSMYA scale, while we did find a gender difference in the SOS. Of the 21 items on the SOS, 7 of them deal with sexually explicit material, exotic dancers, or explicit public exposition. Women tend to find sexually explicit materials more offensive than men (e.g., Cowan & Dunn, 1994; Glascock, 2005); similarly, questions about exotic dancers and "someone exposing themselves publicly" may be more offensive or threatening to women than sexual in nature. In some ways, the SOS may present a more masculine view of sexuality; it is not surprising, then, that consistent gender differences are found when using this scale. In contrast, the CWSMYA scale contains only a single item about sexually explicit materials and does not address exotic dancers or public exhibition and, therefore, may present a less masculine view of sexuality. The gender difference traditionally found in erotophobia-erotophilia may reflect the masculine nature of the questions on the SOS rather than a genuine difference in erotophobia-erotophilia. Alternatively, the SOS may simply be more sensitive to gender differences than the CWSMYA scale, and that, coupled with the low number of male participants (n=11) in the current study, may account for no significant gender differences in CWSMYA scores.

Despite some differences with the SOS, the CWSMYA scale appears to be a psychometrically sound measure of erotophobia-erotophilia that is sensitive to an intervention (Girl Time) that was expected to influence the construct. This effect is also apparent in the distribution of scores for each scale: Grade 7 and Grade 8 girls tended to have scores near the midpoint of the distribution, while university students tended to be more erotophilic (As testimony: there were not enough surveys available for all of the university students who volunteered to complete them! - despite a lack of compensation for completing the scale). Our data did not allow for a direct comparison of Grade 7 and Grade 8 girls with university students, but they do suggest that the CWSMYA scale reflects the expected developmental trends in erotophobia-erotophilia.

While it is psychometrically sound, using the CWSMYA scale in practice may present some unique challenges. For example, while the Girl Time outcome evaluation received ethics clearance through three separate ethical review boards, inclusion of the CWSMYA scale was the cause of some controversy and opposition to the program among community members. Also, Grade 7 girls evidenced some difficulty understanding the concepts on the scale (e.g., reactions similar to "ewww.... in your mouth?"). This problem can be remedied by having well-trained facilitators available to provide additional explanation where necessary. Further research is needed with the CWSMYA scale in order to demonstrate construct validity; for example, it could be correlated with measures of sexual orthodoxy (e.g., Mosher's Sex Guilt Scale; Mosher, 1998 or the (non-)Acceptance of Sexuality Scale; Bryan, Aiken, & West, 1997) and other established adolescent sexuality measures (e.g., the Adolescent Sexual Activity Index; Hansen, Paskett, & Cartel 1999). In spite of these difficulties, the benefits of having a scale to measure erotophobia-erotophilia in the evaluation of youth sexual health education programs outweigh the challenges.

Acknowledgements: Glenn J. Meaney is now at the School of Public Health & Health Systems, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. Jennifer Yessis is now at The Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo. This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Tammie Brunk, whose tireless efforts and enthusiasm for Girl Time made the programa success. Tammie (1958-2005) passed away on 24 November 2005 after a courageous battle with ovarian cancer. The authors would like to thank Region of Waterloo Public Health, the implementers of Girl Time: Grade 7/8 Health Sexuality Program, for their collaboration on research efforts. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Dean's Research Committee at St. Jerome's University.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Basen-Engquist, K., Masse, L.C., Coyle, K., Kirby, D., Parcel, G., Banspach, S., & Nodora, J. (1998). Sexual risk behaviour beliefs and self-efficacy scales. In C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S.L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 541-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes (Rev. ed.; pp. 80-82). Ama Arbor, MI: ISR.

Brunk, T., Morris, S., Rye, B.J., Meaney, G.J., Yessis, J., Wenger, L., & McKay, A. (2008). Girl Time: Development and implementation of a healthy sexual education program for girls in Grade 7 and 8. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 71-82.

Bryan, A.D., Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1997). Young women's condom use: The influence of acceptance of sexuality, control over the sexual encounter, and perceived susceptibility to common STDs. Health Psychology, 16, 468-479.

Cowan, G., & Dunn, K.F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? Journal of Sex Research, 31, 11-21.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). Anew scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Cyranowski, J.M., & Andersen, B.L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364-1379.

Durant, L.E., Carey, M.P., & Schroder, K.E.E. (2002). Effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 439-467.

Fisher, W.A., Byrne, D., White, L.A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123-151.

Fisher, W.A., Grenier, G., Watters, W.W., Lamont, J., Cohen, M., & Askwith, J. (1988). Students' sexual knowledge, attitudes toward sex, and willingness to treat sexual concerns. Journal of Medical Education. 63, 379-385.

Geer, J.H., & Robertson, G.G. (2005). Implicit attitudes in sexuality: Gender differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 671-677.

Gerrard, M., Kurylo, M., & Reis, T. (1991). Self-esteem, erotophobia, and retention of contraceptive and AIDS information in the classroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 368-379.

Glascock, J. (2005). Degrading content and character sex: Accounting for men and women's differential reactions to pornography. Communication Reports, 18, 43-53.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 2143.

Hansen, W.B., Paskett, E.D., & Carter, L.J. (1999). The Adolescent Sexual Activity Index (ASAI): A standardized strategy for measuring interpersonal heterosexual behaviors among youth. Health Education Research, 14, 484-490.

Herbenick, D., Reece, M., & Hollub, A. (2009). Inside the ordering room: Characteristics of women's in-home sex toy parties, facilitators, and sexual communication. Sexual Health, 6, 318-327.

King, A.J.C., Beazley, R.P., Warren, W.K., Hankins, C.A., Robertson, A.S., & Radford J.L. (1988). Canada youth and AIDS study. Ottawa, ON: Health and Welfare Canada.

Macapagal, K.R., & Janssen, E. (2011). The valence of sex: Automatic affective associations in erotophilia and erotophobia. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 699-703.

Mosher, D.L. (1998). Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 290-293). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nobre, P.J., Wiegel, M., Bach, A.K., Weisberg, R.B., Brown, T.A., Wincze, J.P., & Barlow, D.H. (2004). Determinants of sexual arousal and the accuracy of its self-estimation in sexually functional males. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 363-371.

Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman, Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Rev. ed.; pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rye, B.J., Meaney, G.J., & Fisher, W.A. (2011). The Sexual Opinion Survey. In T.D. Fisher, C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, & S.L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed.) (Rev. ed.; pp. 231-236). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rye, B.J., Yessis, J., Brunk, T., McKay, A., Morris, S., & Meaney, G.J. (2008). Outcome evaluation of Girl Time: Grade 7/8 Healthy Sexuality Program. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality; 17, 15-36.

Sanders, S.A., Graham, C.A., Yarber, W.L., Crosby, R.A., Dodge, B., & Milhausen, R.R. (2006). Women who put condores on male partners: Correlates of condom application. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30, 460-466.

Small, S.A. (1998). Assessing adolescents' perceptions of the costs and benefits of engaging in sexual intercourse. In C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S.L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 47-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

B.J. Rye (1), Glenn J. Meaney (2), Jennifer Yessis (3), and Alexander McKay (4)

(1) St. Jerome's University at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

(2) Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON

(3) NRC Picker Canada, Markham, ON

(4) The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada (SIECCAN), Toronto ON

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to B.J. Rye and Glenn J. Meaney, Departments of Psychology and Sexuality, Marriage, and Family Studies, St. Jerome's University, 290 Westmount Road North, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G3. E-mail: bjrye@uwaterloo.ca; gjmeaney@uwaterloo.ca
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for erotophobia-erotophilia

                    Girl Time sample (a) (CWSMYA scale)
                        Time 1              Time 2

Sample              n      M     SD     n      M     SD

Program Girls      236   2.82   0.71   250   3.02   0.75
Comparison Girls   508   2.75   0.75   540   2.80   0.74
Total              744   2.77   0.73   790   2.28   0.75

                     Girl Time sample (a) (CWSMYA scale)
                        Time 3              Time 4

Sample              n      M     SD     n      M     SD

Program Girls      222   3.18   0.87   237   3.21   0.80
Comparison Girls   512   2.93   0.78   527   3.00   0.80
Total              734   3.01   0.81   764   3.06   0.80

                         University student sample (b)

Sample                CWSMYA Scale     Sexual Opinion Survey
                    n      M     SD      N      M     SD

Men                 11   6.11   0.65     11   5.15   0.68
Women               39   5.78   1.05     39   4.40   0.88
Total               55   5.70   1.18     55   4.45   0.97

(a) 5-point scale. Higher scores indicate greater comfort

(b) 7-point scale. Higher scores indicate greater comfort

n = number of respondents to this item

Table 2 Internal consistency for the CWSMYA scale
(Girl Time sample)

Sample             Time 1      Time 2       Time 3      Time 4
                               Cronbach's [alpha] (n)

Program Girls      .56 (236)   .61 (236)    .76 (211)   .71 (227)
Comparison Girls   .65 (508)   .64 (501)    .66 (478)   .67 (498)
Total              .62 (744)   .64 (737)    .70 (689)   .69 (725)

                        Average Inter-Item Correlation (n)

Program Girls      .17 (236)   .21 (236)    .35 (211)   .29 (227)
Comparison Girls   .24 (508)   .23 (501)    .25 (478)   .25 (498)
Total              .22 (744)   .23 (737)    .28 (689)   .27 (725)

n = number of respondents to this item

Table 3 Test-retest reliability for the CWSMYA scale
(Girl Time sample)

         Time 1      Time 2      Time 3      Time 4
         r (n) : Program girls above the diagonal;
         Comparison girls below

Time 1   --          .57 (219)   .45 (192)   .42 (204)
Time 2   .63(464)    --          .66 (205)   .60 (217)
Time 3   .53 (432)   .59 (460)   --          .70 (196)
Time 4   .50 (446)   .53 (473)   .63 (453)   --

Note. All correlations significant at p < .001

Table 4 Correlations between the CWSMYA scale and other constructs
used in the Girl Time outcome evaluation

                                      All Girls Combined (a)

                             Time 1 r(n)   Time 2 r(n)   Time 3 r(n)

Behavioral intentions        -.23 (684)    -.27 (786)    -.31 (729)
Sexual attitudes             -.25 (710)    -.24 (786)    -.28 (727)
Costs of intercourse         -.24 (702)    -.24 (709)    -.31 (647)
Sexual behaviour             -.11 (744)    -.17 (787)    -.29 (727)
Parent communication         -.17 (684)    -.17 (756)    -.23 (702)
Benefits of intercourse      -.21 (698)    -.20 (669)    -.24 (702)
Sexual beliefs               -.13 (652)    -.18 (698)    -.24 (658)
Social desirability          -.22 (636)    -.09 (777)    -.22 (641)
Family functioning: mother   -.15 (684)    -.16 (756)    -.21 (702)
Family functioning: father   -.16 (684)    -.17 (754)    -.21 (701)
Sense of school membership   -.09 (668)    -.07 (708)    -.07 (650)
Subjective norms             -.20 (620)    -.10 (772)    -.13 (723)
Self-esteem                  -.10 (695)    -.14 (712)    -.19 (647)
Behavioral skills            -.17 (699)    -.16 (783)    -.15 (727)
Sexual health knowledge       .16 (703)     .13 (789)     .14 (733)
Self-efficacy                -.10 (693)     .02 (785)    -.05 (729)

                              All Girls Combined (a)

                             Time 4 r(n)   Average r

Behavioral intentions        -.27 (760)        -.27
Sexual attitudes             -.26 (763)        -.26
Costs of intercourse         -.23 (689)        -.26
Sexual behaviour             -.33 (756)        -.23
Parent communication         -.25 (733)        -.21
Benefits of intercourse      -.20 (676)        -.21
Sexual beliefs               -.23 (711)        -.20
Social desirability          -.23 (755)        -.19
Family functioning: mother   -.24 (732)        -.19
Family functioning: father   -.2l (733)        -.19
Sense of school membership   -.10 (700)        -.18
Subjective norms             -.24 (754)        -.17
Self-esteem                  -.26 (716)        -.17
Behavioral skills            -.17 (761)        -.16
Sexual health knowledge       .07 (764)         .13
Self-efficacy                -.08 (761)        -.06

Note. Behavioural intentions: motivation to delay sex-use condoms.
Sexual attitudes: evaluation of sexual behaviours. Costs of
intercourse: perceptions of "negative" reasons why "young people" have
sex (Small, 1998). Sexual behaviour: Have you had intercourse? Parent
communication: communication about sexual health topics. Benefits of
intercourse: ratings of "positive" reasons why "young people" have sex
(Small, 1998). Sexual beliefs: specific beliefs related to delaying
sex-using condoms. Social desirability: Crowne-Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe,1960; Paulhus, 1991). Family
functioning: Canada Youth and AIDS Study (King et al., 1988)
instrument assessing perceived parent-child relations. Sense of school
membership: perceptions of belonging to the school community
(Goodenow, 1993). Subjective norms: perceived social support to delay
sex-use condoms. Self-esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Blascovich
& Tomaka,1991). Behavioral skills: perceived effectiveness for
enacting safer sex behaviors (Bandura, 1997). Sexual health knowledge:
based loosely on the Canada Youth and AIDS Study (King et al., 1988).
Self-efficacy: perceived effectiveness for engaging in sexual health
behaviours (Basen-Enquist et al., 1998). Further information on each
scale is available in Rye et al., 2008. n = number of respondents to
this item. Significance levels are not reported because they may be
misleading due to large sample. 'Fisher's z tests for differences
between program girls and comparison girls were conducted for each
measure at each time period; only 7 of 64 possible differences were
significant at p < .05; these were probably Type I errors.

Table 5 Item statistics for the CWMSYA scale (University student
sample)

                                                  N
                                              Men   Women

1. It is not OK for a person to have more     10     39
   than one sex partner during their
   lifetime.
2. It is OK for a person to masturbate        10     39
   if it makes him/her feel good
3. It is OK for two men to have sex with      11     39
   each other or two women to have sex
   with each other
4. It is not OK for people to have sexual     11     39
   intercourse unless they are in a
   committed relationship
5. It is OK to enjoy being sexually aroused   11     39
   (turned on) by a sexy story, picture,
   or movie
6. Oral sex is disgusting to me               11     39

                                                    M (SD)
                                              Men           Women

1. It is not OK for a person to have more     6.30 (1.25)   6.41 (l.30)
   than one sex partner during their
   lifetime.
2. It is OK for a person to masturbate        6.50 (.71)    5.85 (1.39)
   if it makes him/her feel good
3. It is OK for two men to have sex with      4.73 (2.30)   5.56 (l.70)
   each other or two women to have sex
   with each other
4. It is not OK for people to have sexual     5.91 (1.51)   5.31 (1.85)
   intercourse unless they are in a
   committed relationship
5. It is OK to enjoy being sexually aroused   6.55 (.52)    5.82 (l.05)
   (turned on) by a sexy story, picture,
   or movie
6. Oral sex is disgusting to me               6.82 (.60)    5.72 (l.75)

                                                 Median        Mode
                                              Men   Women   Men   Women

1. It is not OK for a person to have more     7     7       7     7
   than one sex partner during their
   lifetime.
2. It is OK for a person to masturbate        7     6       7     7
   if it makes him/her feel good
3. It is OK for two men to have sex with      5     6       7     7
   each other or two women to have sex
   with each other
4. It is not OK for people to have sexual     6     6       7     7
   intercourse unless they are in a
   committed relationship
5. It is OK to enjoy being sexually aroused   7     6       7     6
   (turned on) by a sexy story, picture,
   or movie
6. Oral sex is disgusting to me               7     6       7     7

Note. Responses scored on a Likert-type scale (7-point scale
recommended) ranging from "I strongly disagree" to "I strongly agree."
Items 1, 4, and 6 reverse coded; average scores based on all 6 items.
Higher scores indicate greater comfort. Missing data can be ignored
provided participants complete at least half of the items. n = number
of respondents to this item
COPYRIGHT 2012 SIECCAN, The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rye, B.J.; Meaney, Glenn J.; Yessis, Jennifer; McKay, Alexander
Publication:The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Sep 22, 2012
Words:5467
Previous Article:Conference announcements.
Next Article:Factors impacting women's sexual desire: examining long-term relationships in emerging adulthood.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters