“I’M NEVER GOING TO GET PREGNANT LIKE HER”: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE SOCIAL COMPARISON USES SCALE Beth Baldwin Tigges PhD, RN, PNP, BC Interim Sr. Associate Dean for Research, Associate Professor UNM College of Nursing Research Assistants: Aimee Adams MSN, CNM; Kelly Scheder MSN, CFNP; Carol Miller BSN, RN, Angela Stevens BSN, RN, Jennifer Chait, Pamela Agee BSN, RN Funded by NIH/NINR, R15 NR A2

Background and Specific Aims Many pregnancy prevention programs not effective—need theoretically based and practical interventions Many pregnancy prevention programs not effective—need theoretically based and practical interventions Adolescents’ social comparisons may influence their perceptions and behavioral choices Adolescents’ social comparisons may influence their perceptions and behavioral choices No developed tools to measure motives for social comparison No developed tools to measure motives for social comparison Specific Aims To develop a reliable and valid instrument—Social Comparison Motives Scale (SCMS)—to measure adolescents’ motives for social comparison related to pregnancy prevention. To develop a reliable and valid instrument—Social Comparison Motives Scale (SCMS)—to measure adolescents’ motives for social comparison related to pregnancy prevention. To conduct pilot analyses of the relationships between adolescents’ motives (SCMS) and stages of change for effective contraceptive use (OCP, Depo, patch, condoms). To conduct pilot analyses of the relationships between adolescents’ motives (SCMS) and stages of change for effective contraceptive use (OCP, Depo, patch, condoms).

Part 1: Initial Item Development 8 focus groups (4 male, 4 female) of English-speaking 9 th graders at public high school (N = 50; 56% female; 54% Hispanic white; 6% Native Amer; 33% sexually active) 8 focus groups (4 male, 4 female) of English-speaking 9 th graders at public high school (N = 50; 56% female; 54% Hispanic white; 6% Native Amer; 33% sexually active) “Imagine you are someone who has to make decisions about sexual activity and avoiding pregnancy. Why would you compare upward…; downward…; or laterally…?” “Imagine you are someone who has to make decisions about sexual activity and avoiding pregnancy. Why would you compare upward…; downward…; or laterally…?” Content analysis (N4 software)  8 Dimensions; 54 Items Content analysis (N4 software)  8 Dimensions; 54 Items 5 content validity experts; CVI=1.0 ( all items 3-4 on 4 point) 5 content validity experts; CVI=1.0 ( all items 3-4 on 4 point) 6 dimensions; 35 items (1 = never; 5 = very often) 6 dimensions; 35 items (1 = never; 5 = very often)  Future Consequences “To think about my future”  Distancing “To show me what not to do”  Self-Enhancement “To feel good about myself”  Modeling “To give me a goal”  Self-Evaluation “To see my strengths and weaknesses”  Similarity-Identification ”To show me that I have a lot in common with someone else”

Part II: Initial Testing Sample: th -10 th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 53% female; 66% Hisp White; 8% Native Amer; 31% free/red lunch; 45% sexually active Sample: th -10 th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 53% female; 66% Hisp White; 8% Native Amer; 31% free/red lunch; 45% sexually active Item Analysis: All ranged 1-5; M 2.6 – 3.61 (SD 1.02 – 1.47); No floor or ceiling effects Item Analysis: All ranged 1-5; M 2.6 – 3.61 (SD 1.02 – 1.47); No floor or ceiling effects Exploratory Factor Analysis  Common Factor-Principal Axis Factoring  Oblique Rotation  Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (  2 = , p =.00)  Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (sample size relative to # items) =.94  Measure of Sampling Adequacy: (items correlate) All item MSA’s >.88  Kaiser-Guttman: Eigen >1  Item-to-factor loadings >.40 Future Self;  =.85 Modeling;  =.71 Self-Enhanc;  =.82 Sim-Identif;  =.76 Distancing;  = item  =.91

Part III: Confirmatory FA Using SEM Sample: th -10 th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 50% female; 72% Hisp White; 10% Native Amer; 80% free/red lunch; 51% sexually active Sample: th -10 th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 50% female; 72% Hisp White; 10% Native Amer; 80% free/red lunch; 51% sexually active Recursive models; maximum likelihood estimates Recursive models; maximum likelihood estimates SEM RESULTS  Multi-group with tests of constrained models; 5 factors; 15 items  NFI=.92; CFI=.96; RMSEA=.04 (CI= ; p=.99)  No significant changes in  2 between unconstrained and constrained models ADDITIONAL VALIDITY TESTING  Convergent validity: Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (r=.50)  Discriminant validity: Rosenberg SES (r=.15)

Part III: H o Testing & Conclusions 136 sexually active; ANOVA – Differences in social comparison use between stages of change for effective BC use [F(2, 135)=2.701; p=.048] 136 sexually active; ANOVA – Differences in social comparison use between stages of change for effective BC use [F(2, 135)=2.701; p=.048] Eta squared =.06 (medium effect size) Eta squared =.06 (medium effect size) Action stage (M=3.51) used more social comparison than pre-contemplation (M=2.91) (post-hoc Dunnett-C <.05) Action stage (M=3.51) used more social comparison than pre-contemplation (M=2.91) (post-hoc Dunnett-C <.05) MEANS PLOTS CONCLUSIONS  Adolescents talk very freely about comparisons  5-Factor, 15-item model demonstrated good fit with invariant factor loadings, variances, and covariances across two samples of 9 th and 10 th graders  15-item Social Comparison Motives Scale (SCMS) with demonstrated reliability, content, and construct validity  Continued testing in additional samples: replication, state vs. trait, link with behavior