Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale (Van de Ven, Bornhoit, & Bailey, 1996)
- Populations: adolescents
- Age ranges: 14-15
- Languages: English
- Countries: Australia
Items
- I would speak in a small class group with a gay person or lesbian about homosexual issues.*
- I would speak individually, in class, with a gay person or lesbian about homosexual issues.*
- I would NOT like to have a gay person or lesbian address the class about homosexual issues.
- I would take the opportunity to talk in an informal lunchtime meeting with a group of four lesbians or gay males.*
- I would NOT attend a lunchtime BBQ at which four gay males or lesbians are present.
- I would watch a video in class in which a lesbian or gay person features.*
- I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to do more to stop violence against gay men and lesbians.*
- I would NOT sign my name to a petition asking the government to make sure gays and lesbians have equal rights with everybody else.
- I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to allow lesbian and gay couples to officially register their marriage
or partnership.* - I would sign my name to a petition asking the government to allow lesbian and gay couples to adopt children.*
*Reverse coded item.
Responses
Items used a 5 point Likert-type scale, 1 = Definitely False, 5 = Definitely True.
Scoring
“It was hypothesized that all items would contribute to an overall computed measure of homophobic behavior ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores (following convention) reflecting more negative behavior toward lesbians and gay males” (Van de Ven, Bornhoit, & Bailey, 1996)
Citations
Van de Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Measuring cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of homophobic reaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(2), 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02437934
Team comments
Convergent and Construct validity for this measure were not scored as the evidence for this form of validation was obtained exclusively with a sample older than the population of interest for the Good Measure Project. For these forms of evidence, please see Van de Ven, Bornhoit, & Bailey (1996).
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Unknown: Face validity
- Unknown: Convergent validity
- Unknown: 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