Knowledge and Attitude Scales (Zometa et al., 2007)
- Populations: Adolescents
- Age ranges: Range reported as 13-17+
- Languages: Spanish, English
- Countries: El Salvador; United States
Items
Subscales
- Knowledge Test, 15 Items
- Attitude, 15 Items
Scoring
“The 15 items on the knowledge test were scored dichotomously (1 = correct, 0 = incorrect). Scoring procedures followed the CDC
guidelines in which if the statement was true, 1 point was awarded for answers “I am sure it’s true” and “I think it’s true”, and 0 points were awarded for “I don’t know”, “I think it’s false”, or “I am sure it’s false”. “
Citations
- Zometa, C. S., Dedrick, R., Knox, M. D., Westhoff, W., Siman Siri, R., & Debaldo, A. (2007). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an HIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudinal instrument. AIDS Education and Prevention, 19(3), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2007.19.3.231
- Basen-Engquist, K., Mâsse, L. C., Coyle, K., Kirby, D., Parcel, G. S., Banspach, S., & Nodora, J. (1999). Validity of scales measuring the psychosocial determinants of HIV/STD-related risk behavior in adolescents. Health Education Research, 14(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/14.1.25
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1992). The handhook for evaluating HIV education—Booklet 6. Retrieved January, 2002,from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/publications/hiv_handbook/index.htm [citation taken from Zometa et al., 2007]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis Project. Compendium of HIV prevention interventions with evidence of effectiveness interventions: Programs that work. Retrieved January 2003, from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/HIVcompendium/hivcompendium.pdf [citation taken from Zometa et al., 2007]
Team comments
The attitude scales were modelled with a 4 factor model and a 2 factor model, derived from a CDC measure and one by Basesn-Engquist (1999) respectively. Of all subscales, ONLY the 2 factor model of the Attitude subscales achieved our standard for adequacy in construct validity.
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Green: Face validity
- Unknown: Convergent validity
- Red: Construct validity
Reliability
- Red: Internal consistency
- Red: 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