The Toxic Masculinity Scale: Development and Initial Validation.

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Behavioral Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.3390/bs14111096
Steven Michael Sanders, Claudia Garcia-Aguilera, Nicholas C Borgogna, John Richmond T Sy, Gianna Comoglio, Olivia A M Schultz, Jacqueline Goldman
{"title":"The Toxic Masculinity Scale: Development and Initial Validation.","authors":"Steven Michael Sanders, Claudia Garcia-Aguilera, Nicholas C Borgogna, John Richmond T Sy, Gianna Comoglio, Olivia A M Schultz, Jacqueline Goldman","doi":"10.3390/bs14111096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study sought to develop and validate the Toxic Masculinity Scale (TMS). Following scale development best practices, a thorough review of the literature and existing measures was conducted. Next, a qualitative inquiry using a grounded theory approach was employed to develop a data-driven definition of toxic masculinity and 165 proposed instrument items. These items were reviewed and modified with input from content experts (<i>N</i> = 6). The initial 108 items were administered to a preliminary sample (<i>N</i> = 683) of U.S. White undergraduate men. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a five-factor structure (i.e., Masculine Superiority, Gender Rigidity, Emotional Restriction, Repressed Suffering, Domination and Desire). Item analysis yielded a 35-item five factor survey that was administered to a second novel sample (<i>N</i> = 408) of White undergraduate men. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated inadequate fit for the 35-item scale; however, fit was improved by reducing scale length to 28 items loading onto 4 factors (removal of the Domination and Desire factor). Internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity were explored with this sample. The TMS28 demonstrated strong positive correlations with related measures (e.g., CMNI, MRNI) and a strong negative correlation with a diametrically opposed measure (i.e., LFAIS). Additionally, the TMS28 demonstrated strong adequate internal consistency for the scale overall (<i>α</i> = 0.93) and for the four subscales (i.e., <i>α</i> = 0.87-0.94). Future directions and implications for the instrument are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8742,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences","volume":"14 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591014/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study sought to develop and validate the Toxic Masculinity Scale (TMS). Following scale development best practices, a thorough review of the literature and existing measures was conducted. Next, a qualitative inquiry using a grounded theory approach was employed to develop a data-driven definition of toxic masculinity and 165 proposed instrument items. These items were reviewed and modified with input from content experts (N = 6). The initial 108 items were administered to a preliminary sample (N = 683) of U.S. White undergraduate men. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a five-factor structure (i.e., Masculine Superiority, Gender Rigidity, Emotional Restriction, Repressed Suffering, Domination and Desire). Item analysis yielded a 35-item five factor survey that was administered to a second novel sample (N = 408) of White undergraduate men. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated inadequate fit for the 35-item scale; however, fit was improved by reducing scale length to 28 items loading onto 4 factors (removal of the Domination and Desire factor). Internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity were explored with this sample. The TMS28 demonstrated strong positive correlations with related measures (e.g., CMNI, MRNI) and a strong negative correlation with a diametrically opposed measure (i.e., LFAIS). Additionally, the TMS28 demonstrated strong adequate internal consistency for the scale overall (α = 0.93) and for the four subscales (i.e., α = 0.87-0.94). Future directions and implications for the instrument are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有毒男性气质量表:开发与初步验证。
本研究旨在开发和验证有毒男性气质量表(TMS)。根据量表开发的最佳实践,我们对文献和现有的测量方法进行了全面的回顾。然后,采用基础理论方法进行定性调查,以数据为导向来定义 "有毒男性气质",并提出了 165 个工具项目。内容专家(6 人)对这些项目进行了审核和修改。最初的 108 个项目对美国白人本科男生进行了初步抽样调查(N = 683)。探索性因子分析显示了五因子结构(即男性优越感、性别僵化、情感限制、压抑痛苦、支配和欲望)。项目分析得出了 35 个项目的五因素调查,并对第二个新样本(N = 408)的白人本科男生进行了调查。确认性因素分析表明,35 个项目的量表拟合度不够;然而,通过将量表长度缩减到 28 个项目,并将其载入 4 个因素(删除支配和欲望因素),拟合度得到了提高。对该样本进行了内部一致性信度、建构效度和判别效度的研究。TMS28 与相关测量(如 CMNI、MRNI)呈现出很强的正相关性,与截然相反的测量(即 LFAIS)呈现出很强的负相关。此外,TMS28 在量表整体(α = 0.93)和四个分量表(即 α = 0.87-0.94)上都表现出很强的充分内部一致性。本文讨论了该工具的未来发展方向和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral Sciences
Behavioral Sciences Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
429
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Associations Among Beliefs Supporting Patriarchal Principles, Conflict Avoidance, and Economic Violence in Intimate-Partner Relationships of Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Can the Ability to Play Steady Beats Be Indicative of Cognitive Aging? Using a Beat Processing Device. Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on R&D Investment and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion. Patient Safety Incidents in Inpatient Psychiatric Settings: An Expert Opinion Survey. Adolescent Depressive Symptoms and Peer Dynamics: Distorted Perceptions in Liking and Disliking Networks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1