Advertisement

Sex Roles

, 36:221 | Cite as

Latent structure of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: Confirmatory factor analyses

  • Lynda A. King
  • Daniel W. King
  • David M. Gudanowski
  • Casey T. Taft
Article

Abstract

The dimensionality of alternate forms of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. The subjects, predominantly Caucasian students from seven colleges in the United States and Canada, completed Form B (n = 1,351) and Form K (n = 633) of the instrument. A series of hierarchically nested measurement models was specified and evaluated. A hypothesized two-factor, second-order solution was deemed most appropriate for both forms: a higher order “Intimate Relationship Egalitarianism” factor that subsumes three first-order domain factors (marital, parental, and social-interpersonal-heterosexual roles) and a higher-order “Formal Relationship Egalitarianism” factor that subsumes two first-order domain factors (educational and employment roles).

Keywords

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Gender Role Attitude Multivariate Behavioral Research Female Executive Relationship Egalitarianism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC.Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Bilder, S. M. (1995). Construction and validation of the Gender Attitude Inventory, a structured inventory to assess multiple dimensions of gender attitudes.Sex Roles, 32, 753–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 35–67.Google Scholar
  4. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., & King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes.Sex Roles, 10, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein, I. H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization.Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structure equation models.Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criteria (AIC).Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brabeck, M. M., & Weisgerber, K. (1989). College students’ perceptions of men and women choosing teaching and management: The effects of gender and sex role egalitarianism.Sex Roles, 21, 841–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James, L. R., Muliak, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982).Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  17. King, D. W., & King, L. A. (1983). Sex-role egalitarianism as a moderator variable in decision-making: Two validity studies.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 1199–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Abbreviated measures of sex-role egalitarian attitudes.Sex Roles, 23, 659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1993).Manual for the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: An instrument to measure attitudes toward gender-role equality. London, Ontario: Research Psychologists Press/Sigma Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
  20. King, D. W., Beere, C. A., King, L. A., & Beere, D. B. (1981).A new measure of sex-role attitudes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  21. King, N. (1994). College women: Reflections on recurring themes and a discussion of the treatment process and setting. In B. P. Kinoy (Ed.),Eating disorders: New directions in treatment and recovery. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Royse, D., & Clawson, D. (1988). Sex-role egalitarianism, feminism, and sexual identity.Psychological Reports, 63, 160–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Scandura, T. A., Tejeda, M. J., & Lankau, M. J. (1995). An examination of the validity of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES-KK) using confirmatory factor analysis procedures.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 832–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M. W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential Chi-square statistics.Psychometrika, 50, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stith, S. M. (1990). Police response to domestic violence: The influence of individual and familial factors.Violence and Victims, 5, 37–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynda A. King
    • 1
  • Daniel W. King
    • 1
  • David M. Gudanowski
    • 2
  • Casey T. Taft
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress DisorderBoston Veterans Affairs Medical CenterUSA
  2. 2.Central Michigan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations