Cognitive Susceptibility to Initiating Sexual Intercourse (L’Engle, 2005)

Likelihood of sexual debut in adolescents, 5 Items, Ages 12-15
  • Populations: adolescents
  • Age ranges: 12-15
  • Languages: English
  • Countries: United States

Items

  • 1: How likely is it that you will have sex in the next year?
  • 2: How likely is it that you will have sex while you are in high school?
  • 3: If you had a boyfriend/girlfriend, how sure are you that you could refuse to have sex with him/her if you didn’t feel ready?
  • 4: I think I’m ready to have sex.
  • 5: I believe it is OK for people to have sex before marriage if they are in love.

Responses

Items 1 and 2 used a 4 point Likert-type scale, 1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely

Item 3 used a 5 point Likert-type scale, 1 = extremely sure to 5 = not at all sure

Items 4 and 5 used a 5 point Likert type scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree

 

Scoring

“Following the protocol used by Pierce and colleagues, susceptibility was indicated by lack of a firm commitment not to engage in risk behavior (Pierce et al., 1996; Pierce et al., 1995). First, responses to each of the five items were dichotomized to indicate whether a respondent was susceptible to initiating sexual intercourse (e.g., lacked a firm commitment not to engage in 
intercourse). If the response was not in the two lowest categories indicative of delaying sexual intercourse, the respondent was considered susceptible” (L’Engle, 2005).

Citations

L’Engle, K. L. (2005) SOCIALIZATION AND COGNITIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INITIATING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DURING ADOLESCENCE [Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill] Proquest Dissertations and Theses.

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

  • Significant design input from young people
  • Cognitive interviews with young people
  • Expert input

Validity

  • Green: Face validity
  • Unknown: Convergent validity
  • Green: Construct validity

Reliability

  • Unknown: Internal consistency
  • Green: Test-retest

Ease of use

  • Unknown: Readability

Definitions

Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.

Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.

Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.

Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.

Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).

Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.

Key

  • Green: Meets validation criteria
  • Red: Does not meet validation criteria
  • Unknown: Evidence not available

Categories

Start a new search

Loading