A Psychometric Study of the Prosocial Behavior Scale: Differential Item Functioning by Gender

Abstract

Some scales co-exist in the literature to measure prosocial behavior in adolescents. Gender differences in prosocial behavior have been a controversial topic of research. To strengthen future research in the area, the psychometric properties of the most used instruments must be guaranteed, especially its gender non-bias. Our study provides psychometric evidence for the Prosocial Behavior Scale in a sample of adolescents, exploring: (a) its factor structure; (b) reliability; (c) gender-related differential item functioning (DIF); (d) nomological validity. A sample of 512 high school students (mean age = 13.62 (SD = 1.34), 51.6% females) participated in the research. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the factor structure of the scale, which adequately fitted the data (χ2 (35) = 152.224, p < 0.001, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.905, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.085 90%CI [0.072–0.099], Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) = 0.079). Reliability results were good (α = 0.74, ω = 0.74). Regarding the DIF, five items presented some gender-related bias, generally benefiting females. However, the DIF impact could be considered negligible. Correlations with the subdimensions of the psychological capital offered evidence of the nomological validity of the scale. In conclusion, the scale presented adequate psychometric properties that support its ability to effectively assess prosocial behavior and gender differences in the prosocial behavior samples of adolescents. Additionally, the results obtained imply that gender differences in the manifestations of prosocial behavior require measurements that can fairly sample behaviors characteristic of each gender.

Psychometric Validation of the Adult Prosocialness Behavior Scale in a Professional Teaching Context

“…On the other hand, the results suggest that the different manifestations of prosocial behaviors and feelings considered by the APBS would be equally present in women and men since no significant differences were found [123], even with the possibility of an important socializing effect by the environment [77]. This does indeed mark a difference with the aforementioned study [74] and others that show differences in favor of women [57][58][59][60]63]. Its explanation may lie in socialization patterns [64] associated with emerged stereotypes in the culture [61] and may be established mainly during adolescence [62].…”

“…However, even though this general characteristic prevails, it is important to consider the different types of prosociality [ 55 ] and their operationalization in specific organizational contexts [ 56 ]. On the other hand, the differences noted with respect to gender [ 57 ], particularly the emotional support [ 58 ] and empathy [ 59 , 60 ] commonly favorable to women, appear to be associated with cultural stereotypes [ 61 ], which are especially influential during adolescence [ 62 ]. It is usually expected that women are more sensitive, empathic, and prosocial [ 63 ]; these are expectations that are likely linked to socialization practices [ 64 ], which would be reproduced at school [ 61 ] with consequences for student performance [ 65 ].…”