1. Validation of the Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy Scale
Christopher Quinn-Nilas, MA1, Robin R. Milhausen, PhD1, Rebecca Breuer, MSc1, Julia Bailey, PhD2, Menelaos Pavlou, PhD2, Ralph J. DiClemente, PhD3, & Gina M. Wingood, PhD3.
[1] University of Guelph
[2] University College London
[3] Emory University
Objectives
Measures
Correlations with Subscales of SCSES
SCF
DSC CI
SSA SP RQ
IPA
Condom SE
Contracep. Comm.
(α = .89)
.33**
.56**
.20**
.49**
-.17**
.37**
-.19**
.55**
Negative Sexual Messages
(α = .87)
.26**
..43*
.21**
.34**
-.20**
.30**
-.26**
.50**
Positive Sexual Messages
(α = .88)
.42**
.31**
-.15**
Sexual History
(α = .82)
.23**
.25**
.29**
.27**
.32**
-.22**
.51**
Condom Negot.
(α = .83)
.19**
.28**
-.12*
.32 **
Examine the reliability and validity of the newly developed Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy Scale
Scale
Example Item
Response Structure
Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy
Measures confidence engaging in a variety of communication activities with a sexual partner
4-Point Scale
Sexual Communication Frequency (SCF)
“Have you talked about these things with current or most recent partner/s?”
Yes/No
Dyadic Sexual Communication (DSC)
“My partner responds when I want to talk about our sex life.”
5-Point Scale
Communication Intentions (CI)
Intentions to: “Use a condom if you have vaginal sex with a new partner.”
Sexual Self-Awareness (SSA)
“I know what I want when it comes to sex.”
Sexual Pressure (SP)
In the last three months have you been: “Pressured into kissing or touching.”
Relationship Quality (RQ)
“I enjoy the time we spend together.”
Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA)
In the last three months, have you been: “Humiliated or emotionally abused in other ways by a partner or ex-partner.”
Condom Use Self-Efficacy (Condom SE)
How confident are you to: “Get condoms if you need them?”
background
Young people aged 16 – 24 years in the UK are most at risk for STIs (Health Protection Agency, 2008), and are more likely to report not using condoms with at least two sexual partners in the last year (Mercer et al., 2013).
The highest prevalence of chlamydia in the UK was among women aged years and men aged years (Sonnenberg et al., 2013).
Poor verbal communication between partners may be a significant factor contributing to adolescent risk taking.
Sex positivity: increases the effectiveness of HIV/STI and pregnancy prevention interventions (Philpott, Knerr, & Maher, 2006)
Participants
374 U.K. adolescents, most were female (n = 216; 59%); but a substantial percentage were male (n = 158; 42%).
Ages ranged from 16 to 22 year olds (M = 18.29, SD = 1.35), most of whom were enrolled at a college or university (64.2%), while 13.9% were currently in high school, and 9.4% were working.
Most of the participants were White  (73%)
Methods
Scale assessment procedures noted by Schwab (1980)
Correlation
Factor Analysis
Reliability
Scale Development
results
conclusions
Developed based on a review of the literature and consultations with sexual health educators to assess six sexual risk-related areas (e.g., IV drug use, STI history)
18 items were reviewed in focus groups with African American adolescent women to determine relevance and phrasing – this reduced the number to 7.
For this project, additional Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy scale items were developed (i.e., such as related to sexual pleasure, sexual negotiation).
12 U.K. adolescents were interviewed to assess understanding, and 22 items were finalized.
Adolescent women from the current sample were, on average, not very self-efficacious regarding their sexual communication
This study mirrors other research which demonstrates that sexual communication self-efficacy is associated with condom attitudes (Halpern-Felscher et al., 2004).
This study demonstrates the importance of communicating about sexual topics beyond sexual history and sexual risk.
The strongest correlations were between Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy subscales and condom use self-efficacy. All subscales of the SCSES were associated with increased sexual communication frequency, communication intentions, sexual self-awareness, relationship quality as well as lower levels of sexual pressure from their partner and interpersonal violence.
The Flesch-Kincaid assessment indicated that literacy grade level was 4.5
Maximum Liklihood Factor Analysis: 5-Factor Structure
High reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha between .82 and .89)
Support for Construct Validity of SCSES