Homonegativity Scale (Morrison, Parriag, & Morrison, 1999)

Endorsement of gender stereotypes, false beliefs about sexual coercion and homonegativity in adolescents; 6 Items, Age M = 16.5
  • Populations: adolescents
  • Age ranges: M = 16.5, SD = 2.3 years, range not reported
  • Languages: English
  • Countries: Canada

Items

Item Stem: I believe that:

  • 1. homosexuals should not be allowed to work with children.
  • 2. homosexuality is not a mental disorder.*
  • 3. homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.*
  • 4. homosexuals are immoral.
  • 5. people who support homosexual rights are probably homosexual themselves
  • 6. homosexuals should be avoided whenever possible.

*Item is reverse-coded

 

Responses

Items used a 5 point Likert-type scale,  1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = don’t know; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

Scoring

“Scores can range from 6 to 30, with higher scores representing greater homonegativity.”  (Morrison, Parriag, & Morrison, 1999)

Citations

Morrison, T.G., McLeod, L.D., Morrison, M.A., Anderson, D., & O’Connor, W.E. (1997). Gender stereotyping, homonegativity, and misconceptions about sexually coercive behaviour among adolescents. Youth & Society, 28, 351-382

 

Todd G.MorrisonPhD, Amanda V.ParriagPhD (cand.) & Melanie A.MorrisonPhD (cand.) (1999) The Psychometric Properties of the Homonegativity Scale, Journal of Homosexuality, 37:4, 111-126, DOI: 10.1300/J082v37n04_07

 

Team comments

This scale has two versions: HS-G intended for use with gay men, and the HS-L intended for use with lesbians.

This scale is a subscale of the Sexual Aggressions and Conservatism Scale (Morrison et al., 1997)

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

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

Validity

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

Reliability

  • Green: Internal consistency
  • Unknown: 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