Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale (Van de Ven, Bornhoit, & Bailey, 1996)

Intentions of behaviour towards gay males and lesbians in adolescents, 10 Items, Ages 14-15
  • 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

Categories

Start a new search

Loading