A Psychometric Evaluation of a Swedish Version of the Positive–Negative Sex-Role Inventory (PN-SRI)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Setting and Sample
2.2. Instruments
2.3. Translation
2.4. Additional Survey
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Data
3.2. Score Distributions
3.3. Reliability Tests
3.4. Validity Tests
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
German a | English a | Swedish Translation | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Analytisch | Analytical | Analytisk |
2 | Einfühlsam | Empathic | Empatisk |
3 | Rational | Rational | Rationell |
4 | Naïve | Naïve | Naiv |
5 | Gefühlvoll | Sensitive | Känslig |
6 | Überheblich | Arrogant | Arrogant |
7 | Ängstlich | Anxious | Ängslig |
8 | Angeberisch | Ostentatious | Uppseendeväckande |
9 | Sachlich | Objective | Objektiv |
10 | Schroff | Harsh | Sträng/barsk |
11 | Überempfindlich | Oversensitive | Överkänslig |
12 | Logisch | Logical | Logisk |
13 | Liedenschaftlich | Passionate | Passionerad |
14 | Emotional | Emotional | Emotionell |
15 | Prahlerisch | Boastful | Skrytsam |
17 | Praktisch | Practical | Praktisk |
16 | Orientierungslos | Disoriented | Desorienterad |
18 | Zärtlich | Tender | Ömsint |
19 | Rücksichtslos | Inconsiderate | Hänsynslös |
20 | Machtbesessen | Power-hungry | Maktgirig |
21 | Übervorsichtig | Overcautious | Överdrivet försiktig |
22 | Liebevoll | Loving | Kärleksfull |
23 | Selbstzweifelnd | Self-doubting | Tvivlar på sig själv |
24 | Lösungsorientiert | Solution-focused | Fokuserad på problemlösning |
References
- Berger, A.; Krahé, B. Negative attributes are gendered too: Conceptualizing and measuring positive and negative facets of sex-role identity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 516–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenkrantz, P.; Bee, H.; Vogel, S.; Broverman, I. Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1968, 32, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spence, J.T.; Helmreich, R.; Stapp, J. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex Role Stereotypes and Masculinity-Femininity; Journal Supplement Abstract Service, American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1974; p. 4.
- Spence, J.T.; Helmreich, R.L.; Holahan, C.K. Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bem, S.L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1974, 42, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Banaji, M.R.; Prentice, D.A. The Self in Social Contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1994, 45, 297–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodhill, B.M.; Samuels, C.A. Desirable and undesirable androgyny: A prescription for the twenty-first century. J. Gend. Stud. 2004, 13, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juster, R.P.; Pruessner, J.C.; Desrochers, A.B.; Bourdon, O.; Durand, N.; Wan, N.; Tourjman, V.; Kouassi, E.; Lesage, A.; Lupien, S. Sex and Gender Roles in Relation to Mental Health and Allostatic Load. Psychosom. Med. 2016, 78, 788–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, O.; Steptoe, A. The contribution of gender-role orientation, work factors and home stressors to psychological well-being and sickness absence in male- and female-dominated occupational groups. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juster, R.P.; Lupien, S. A Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis of Allostatic Load and Physical Complaints. Gend. Med. 2012, 9, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vafaei, A.; Ahmed, T.; Freire Ado, N.; Zunzunegui, M.V.; Guerra, R.O. Depression, Sex and Gender Roles in Older Adult Populations: The International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS). PLoS ONE 2016, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Annandale, E.; Hunt, K. Masculinity, Feminity and Sex—An Exploration of Their Relative Contribution to Explaining Gender Differences in Health. Sociol. Health Ill. 1990, 12, 24–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twigg, J. The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology. J. Aging Stud. 2004, 18, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, M.M.E. Construct validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Scand. J. Psychol. 1980, 21, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, C.; Zimmerman, D.H. Doing Gender. Gend. Soc. 1987, 1, 125–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, W. Biosocial Construction of Sex Differences and Similarities in Behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 46, 55–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinder, L.; Roupe, S.; Steen, B.; Svanborg, A. Seventy-year-old people in Gothenburg. A population study in an industrialized Swedish city. Acta Med. Scand. 1975, 198, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Altman, D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torgrimson, B.N.; Minson, C.T. Sex and gender: What is the difference? J. Appl. Physiol. 2005, 99, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spence, J.T.; Helmreich, R.; Stapp, J. Ratings of Self and Peers on Sex-Role Attributes and Their Relation to Self-Esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Femininity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 32, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, C.; Osman, R. Positives and Negatives: Reconceptualising Gender Attributes within the Context of the Sex Role Identity and Well-Being Litterature: An Examination within the South African Context. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2016, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stevens, J.P. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Masculinity Scale | |
Positive Masculinity Subscale (MAS+) | Negative Masculinity Subscale (MAS−) |
Analytical | Arrogant |
Logical | Boastful |
Objective | Harsh |
Practical | Inconsiderate |
Rational | Ostentatious |
Solution-focused | Power-hungry |
Femininity Scale | |
Positive femininity subscale (FEM+) | Negative femininity subscale (FEM−) |
Emotional | Anxious |
Empathic | Disoriented |
Loving | Naïve |
Passionate | Overcautious |
Sensitive | Oversensitive |
Tender | Self-doubting |
Total Sample (n = 1124) | Sub-Sample (n = 406) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Men (n = 518) | Women (n = 606) | Men (n = 187) | Women (n = 219) | |
n, % | n, % | n, % | n, % | |
Education * | ||||
Primary or less a | 93 (18.0) | 82 (13.5) | 27 (14.4) | 19 (8.7) |
More than primary | 417 (80.5) | 514 (84.8) | 159 (85.0) | 198 (90.4) |
Work | ||||
Working now | 134 (25.9) | 105 (17.3) | 44 (23.5) | 39 (17.8) |
Marital status | ||||
Have partner | 425 (82.0) | 380 (62.7) | 153 (81.8) | 145 (66.2) |
Living alone | 130 (25.1) | 251 (41.4) | 52 (27.8) | 86 (39.3) |
Ethnicity | ||||
Born in Sweden | 431 (83.2) | 523 (86.3) | 157 (84.0) | 187 (85.4) |
Religion | ||||
Religious b | 107 (20.7) | 170 (28.1) | 39 (20.9) | 61 (27.9) |
Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max | t | df | p b | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Scale | All | Men | Women | |||||||
PN-SRI a | 91.36 | 90.88 | 91.78 | 91.00 | 13.03 | 36 | 161 | −1.15 | 1115 | n.s. |
Sub-scales | ||||||||||
Masculinity | 43.83 | 45.40 | 42.48 | 44.00 | 7.920 | 16 | 81 | 6.22 | 1050 | ** |
Femininity | 47.51 | 45.42 | 49.30 | 47.00 | 9.102 | 19 | 80 | −7.27 | 1117 | ** |
MAS+ | 30.99 | 31.60 | 30.47 | 31.00 | 5.476 | 9 | 42 | 3.45 | 1117 | ** |
MAS− | 12.83 | 13.80 | 12.00 | 12.00 | 5.137 | 6 | 40 | 5.95 | 1119 | ** |
FEM+ | 29.77 | 28.40 | 30.95 | 30.00 | 5.517 | 8 | 42 | −7.93 | 1118 | ** |
FEM− | 17.74 | 17.00 | 18.36 | 17.00 | 6.188 | 6 | 42 | −3.67 | 1118 | ** |
Sub-sample (n = 406) | Men (n = 187) | Women (n = 219) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Desirability | Gender | Desirability | Gender | Desirability | Gender | |
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
MAS+ a | ||||||
Analytical | 367 (91.3) | 313 (78.4) | 170 (91.8) | 150 (81.5) | 196 (90.7) | 162 (75.7) |
Logical | 387 (96.0) | 285 (72.2) | 176 (95.1) | 146 (80.2) | 210 (96.8) | 139 (65.6) |
Objective | 381 (94.8) | 275 (69.8) | 176 (95.1) | 134 (74.0) | 204 (94.4) | 140 (66.0) |
Practical | 399 (99.0) | 244 (61.5) | 182 (98.4) | 152 (83.1) | 216 (99.5) | 92 (43.2) ** |
Rational | 386 (95.8) | 272 (68.2) | 178 (96.2) | 147 (79.9) | 207 (95.3) | 125 (58.4) * |
Solution-focused | 376 (93.3) | 341 (85.3) | 174 (94.1) | 166 (90.2) | 201 (92.6) | 174 (80.9) |
MAS− b | ||||||
Arrogant | 381 (94.5) | 381 (96.5) | 174 (94.0) | 176 (96.7) | 206 (94.9) | 204 (96.2) |
Boastful | 384 (95.3) | 368 (93.2) | 175 (94.6) | 174 (95.6) | 208 (95.9) | 193 (91.0) |
Harsh | 357 (88.8) | 376 (94.5) | 166 (90.2) | 177 (96.7) | 190 (87.5) | 198 (92.5) |
Inconsiderate | 391 (97.0) | 388 (97.7) | 179 (96.8) | 179 (97.8) | 211 (97.2) | 208 (97.7) |
Ostentatious | 300 (75.4) | 242 (61.6) | 139 (75.9) | 121 (66.9) | 160 (74.7) | 120 (56.9) * |
Power-hungry | 385 (95.5) | 391 (98.2) | 179 (96.8) | 180 (98.4) | 205 (94.5) | 210 (98.1) |
FEM+ c | ||||||
Emotional | 304 (75.8) | 381 (95.5) | 144 (77.8) | 174 (95.1) | 159 (73.9) | 206 (95.8) |
Empathic | 381 (94.5) | 387 (97.0) | 175 (94.5) | 173 (94.0) | 205 (94.4) | 213 (99.5) |
Loving | 386 (95.8) | 385 (97.0) | 177 (95.7) | 174 (94.6) | 208 (95.9) | 210 (99.1) |
Passionate | 330 (82.1) | 331 (83.4) | 155 (83.7) | 145 (79.2) | 174 (80.5) | 186 (87.3) |
Sensitive | 236 (58.6) * | 381 (95.7) | 117 (63.2) | 171 (93.4) | 118 (54.3) * | 209 (97.7) |
Tender | 381 (94.5) | 385 (96.7) | 177 (95.7) | 174 (94.6) | 203 (93.5) | 210 (98.6) |
FEM− d | ||||||
Anxious | 369 (91.6) | 370 (93.2) | 163 (88.1) | 162 (89.0) | 206 (94.9) | 207 (96.7) |
Disoriented | 394 (97.8) | 328 (83.0) | 180 (97.3) | 141 (77.5) | 213 (98.2) | 186 (87.7) |
Naïve | 370 (92.0) | 317 (80.7) | 169 (91.3) | 136 (74.7) | 200 (92.5) | 180 (85.7) |
Overcautious | 359 (89.1) | 376 (94.2) | 159 (85.9) | 165 (90.2) | 199 (91.7) | 210 (97.7) |
Oversensitive | 380 (94.3) | 377 (95.0) | 171 (92.4) | 171 (93.4) | 209 (96.3) | 205 (96.2) |
Self-doubting | 378 (94.0) | 355 (89.2) | 173 (93.5) | 149 (81.4) | 205 (94.9) | 205 (95.8) |
Model 1 EFA | Model 2 CFA without Constraints | Model 3 CFA with Constraint (≥0.4) | Model 4 CFA with Constraint (≥0.5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Items = 24 | Items = 24 | Items = 21 | Items = 14 | |
Factor Loadings | Standardized Factor Loadings | Standardized Factor Loadings | Standardized Factor Loadings | |
MAS+ a | ||||
Analytical | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
Logical | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
Objective | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
Practical | 0.30 | 0.36 | X | X |
Rational | 0.60 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
Solution-focused | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 |
MAS– b | ||||
Arrogant | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.57 |
Boastful | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.66 |
Harsh | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.53 | X |
Inconsiderate | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.64 |
Ostentatious | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 | X |
Power-hungry | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
FEM+ c | ||||
Emotional | 0.47 | 0.62 | 0.57 | X |
Empathic | 0.47 | 0.61 | 0.58 | X |
Loving | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.87 |
Passionate | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.47 |
Sensitive | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.47 | X |
Tender | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
FEM– d | ||||
Anxious | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.59 |
Disoriented | 0.37 | 0.49 | X | X |
Naïve | 0.38 | 0.41 | X | X |
Overcautious | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.48 | X |
Oversensitive | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.84 |
Self-doubting | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.47 | X |
e | Model fit | Model fit | Model fit | |
RMSEA | 0.068 | 0.073 | 0.057 | |
p-value (CI) | <0.05 (0.065–0.071) | <0.05 (0.069–0.077) | <0.05 (0.051–0.063) | |
SRMR | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.06 | |
CFI | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.91 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rydberg Sterner, T.; Gudmundsson, P.; Seidu, N.; Bäckman, K.; Skoog, I.; Falk, H. A Psychometric Evaluation of a Swedish Version of the Positive–Negative Sex-Role Inventory (PN-SRI). Societies 2018, 8, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8010013
Rydberg Sterner T, Gudmundsson P, Seidu N, Bäckman K, Skoog I, Falk H. A Psychometric Evaluation of a Swedish Version of the Positive–Negative Sex-Role Inventory (PN-SRI). Societies. 2018; 8(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleRydberg Sterner, Therese, Pia Gudmundsson, Nazib Seidu, Kristoffer Bäckman, Ingmar Skoog, and Hanna Falk. 2018. "A Psychometric Evaluation of a Swedish Version of the Positive–Negative Sex-Role Inventory (PN-SRI)" Societies 8, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8010013