2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-021-03436-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the Validity and Reliability of the Gender Equitable Men’s Scale Using a Longitudinal Cohort of Adolescent Girls and Young Women in South Africa

Abstract: Inequitable gender norms and beliefs contribute to increased sexual risk behavior, and, among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), risk of HIV acquisition. We investigated the longitudinal measurement properties of the Gender Equitable Men’s Scale (GEMS) when applied to a cohort of AGYW in rural South Africa (2011–2015). We used item response theory [Person-Item maps, Differential Item Functioning (DIF)] and measurement invariance confirmatory factor analysis models to assess the validity and reliability o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Gender Equitable Men Scale (GEMS) was used to measure masculinities and gender attitudes, being designed to generate evidence about the standard norms in a community as well as the benefit of any programme that can influence them. GEMS has been adapted in rural South Africa and used to measure gender attitudes (Wesson et al, 2022). Possible responses from participants in the 20-item scale included: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating less equitable attitudes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gender Equitable Men Scale (GEMS) was used to measure masculinities and gender attitudes, being designed to generate evidence about the standard norms in a community as well as the benefit of any programme that can influence them. GEMS has been adapted in rural South Africa and used to measure gender attitudes (Wesson et al, 2022). Possible responses from participants in the 20-item scale included: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating less equitable attitudes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%