Identity Management Strategy Scale (Button, 2004)
- Populations: Sexual minority Adolescents
- Age ranges: 14-24
- Languages: English
- Countries: United States
Items
Subscales
This measure has multiple proposed factor structures.
Original Structure (Button, 2004)
- Counterfeiting, 6 Items
- Avoiding, 7 Items
- Integrating, 10 Items
Adapted Structure (Zhenqiang, 2022)
- Assimilating Subscle, 4 Items
- Decategorizing Subscale, 5 Items
- Integrating Subscale, 6 Items
Adapted Items by subscale
Assimilating
- I only talk about crushes or dates with individuals of the opposite gender even if those are made up.
- I only display romantic/sexual attraction to individuals of the opposite gender.
- I make sure that I don’t behave in the way people expect LGBQ+ to behave.
- I laugh at “fag” or “no homo” jokies to fit in with my straight peers in school.
Decategorizing
- I avoid classmates/peers who frequently discuss romantic or sexual matters.
- I avoid situations (e.g. hang out with peers after class) where straight classmates/peers are likely to ask me personal questions.
- I let my classmates.peers know or think that I find personal questions about my sexual orientation to be inappropriate so that I am not faced with them.
- I avoid personal questions by never asking my classmates/peers about their personal lives.
- When my peers/classmates talk about dates, romances, and friendship, I try to remain silent.
Integrating
- In my daily activities, I am open about my sexual orientation whenever it comes up.
- Whenever I’m asked about being LGBQ+, I answer in an honest way.
- I hang out with my LGBQ+ friends in school.
- I openly display interests in LGBQ+ issues.
- I let my classmates/peers know that I’m proud to be LGBQ+.
- I display objects (e.g. photographs, accessories, symbols) which suggest that I am LGBQ+.
The response was originally reported on a six-point Likert-type scale from “1 = never” to “6 =
always”.
Scoring
Not reported
Citations
- Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 470-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257417
- Zhao, Zhenqiang. (2022). The Process of Sexual Orientation Disclosure and Concealment: Implications for a Multi-Dimensional Construct among Sexual Diverse Youth (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA).
Team comments
The Assimilating subscale did not reach our thresholed for adequacy for Internal Consistency
Please see (Button, 2004) for further validation data, which included evidence for Construct Validity and Internal Consistency, but only in adult graduate students or full-time employees
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