Sexual Diversity Cyberbullying Questionnaire (Muñoz-Fernández et al., 2024)

Experiences specific to cyber-bullying related to sexually diverse presentation in LGBTQ+ adolescents. 16 Items, Age M(SD) = 14.54 (1.76).
  • Populations: Spanish LGBTQ+ individuals
  • Age ranges: Range not reported; M = 14.54, SD = 1.76
  • Languages: Spanish (items presented in English, English validation not reported)
  • Countries: Spain

Items

Subscales:

  • General Cyberbullying
  • LGBTQ+ Cyberbullying

 

General Cyberbullying

  • Swearing to someone or insulting them 
  • Saying swear words about someone to other people in online messages
  • Threatening someone through online messages
  • Hacking into someone’s account and stealing their personal information
  • Hacking into someone’s account and impersonating them
  • Creating a fake account to impersonate someone else
  • Posting someone’s personal information 
  • Posting compromising videos or photos of someone
  • Retouching someone’s photos or videos 
  • Excluding or ignoring someone in a group
  • Spreading rumors about someone 

 

LGBTQ+ Cyberbullying

  • Insulting someone by saying things such as “fagot,” “queer,” “tomboy,” “lesbian,” or related terms
  • Threatening someone by alluding to their sexual orientation or identity
  • Spreading rumors about someone’s sexual orientation or identity
  • Mocking someone’s appearance, clothing, or gestures for not considering them “masculine” or “feminine” enough
  • Picking on a member family of someone because they are LGBT

 

Responses:

Items used a 5 point Likert-type scale (0 = Never; 4 = Yes, more than once a week)

Scoring

Not Reported

Citations

Noelia Muñoz-Fernández, Rosario Del Rey, Joaquín A Mora-Merchán &Paz Elipe (2024) Sexual Diversity Bullying and Cyberbullying Questionnaires: An Inclusive Approach to Measure Sexuality-Based Bullying, Journal of Homosexuality, 71:12, 2740-2763,

DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2023.2260922

Team comments

This measure was validated alongside The Sexual Diversity Bullying Questionnaire (SDBQ) (Muñoz-Fernández et al., 2024).

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