Abstract
The aim of the present study was to develop a psychometrically stronger version of the women’s nontraditional sexuality questionnaire (WNSQ), one that could support a total scale score in addition to subscale scores. Using data from 519 college and community women, the variance composition of the WNSQ was assessed, from which the bifactor model showed the best model fit. This model had a general WNS factor and four group factors: casual sex, self-pleasuring, sexual interest, and sex-as-a-means-to-an-end. A trimmed model was developed based on updated guidelines for shortening composite measurement scales, and confirmed in a separate sample (N = 238). Next, the reliability of the WNSQ-SF was assessed using bifactor reliability and dimensionality diagnostic indices and found that the raw scores from the general factor and three out of the four group factors were reliable. Convergent and discriminant construct evidence of the validity of the subscales was found. Finally, strong and strict invariance across race/ethnicity and sexual orientation was demonstrated, meaning that members of both marginalized and dominant groups of women understand the scale scores in the same way, including the scale score points and zero points of the scales, and that the constructs assessed by the scale are measured with the same degree of precision.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
15 November 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09306-w
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (2nd ed.). New Press.
Beres, M. A., & Farvid, P. (2010). Sexual ethics and young women’s accounts of heterosexual casual sex. Sexualities, 13, 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460709363136
Bowman, C. P. (2014). Women’s masturbation: Experiences of sexual empowerment in a primarily sex-positive sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313514855
Catania, J. A. (1998). Health protective sexual communication scale. In J. Nageotte (Ed.), Sexual Risk (pp. 544–547). Sage Publications.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111421987
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Deshotels, T. H., Tinney, M., & Forsyth, C. J. (2012). McSexy: Exotic dancing and institutional power. Deviant Behavior, 33, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2011.573370
Dueber, D. M. (2016, November). Bifactor Indices Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. http://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/resources.
Endendijk, J. J., van Baar, A. L., & Deković, M. (2020). He is a stud, she is a slut! A meta-analysis on the continued existence of sexual double standards. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 24, 163–190.
Erchull, M., & Liss, M. (2013). Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual empowerment: Development and validation of the Sex is Power Scale. Gender Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-013-9114-6
Fahs, B., Swank, E., & Shamb, A. (2020). “I just go with it”: Negotiating sexual desire discrepancies for women in partnered relationships. Sex Roles, 83, 226–239.
Farvid, P., & Braun, V. (2018). “You worry, ‘cause you want to give a reasonable account of yourself”: Gender, identity management, and the discursive positioning of “risk” in men’s and women’s talk about heterosexual casual sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1405–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1124-0
Farvid, P., Braun, V., & Rowney, C. (2017). ‘No girl wants to be called a slut!’: Women, heterosexual casual sex and the sexual double standard. Journal of Gender Studies, 26, 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1150818
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.
Goetz, C., Coste, J., Lemetayer, F., Rat, A., Montel, S., Recchia, S., Debouverie, M., Pouchot, J., Spitz, E., & Guillemin, F. (2013). Item reduction based on rigorous methodological guidelines is necessary to maintain validity when shortening composite measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.015
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916
Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2020). Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919882903
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x
Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Cook, S., House, A., & Aupont, M. (2007). The femininity ideology scale: Factor structure, reliability, validity, and social contextual variation. Sex Roles, 57, 373–383.
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Hall, R. J., Smalley, K. B., David, K., & Williams, C. (2012). The measurement of nontraditional sexuality in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 283–295.
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., & Rankin, T. J. (2013). Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031545
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Weigold, I. K., & McCurdy, E. R. (2015). Construct distinctiveness and variance composition of multidimensional instruments: Three short-form masculinity measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000092
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideologies. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA Handbook on Men and Masculinities (pp. 23–49). American Psychological Association.
Levant, R. F., Alto, K. M., McKelvey, D. K., Richmond, K., & McDermott, R. C. (2017). Variance composition, measurement invariance by gender, and validity of the Femininity Ideology Scale-Short Form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 708–723.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Marks, M. J., & Wosick, K. (2017). Exploring college men’s and women’s attitudes about women’s sexuality and pleasure via their perceptions of female novelty party attendees. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 77, 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0737-z
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
Milnes, K. (2004). What lies between romance and sexual equality? A narrative study of young women’s sexual experiences. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 6(2–3), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660412331325169
Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. Myers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1255), 1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264754
Parry, D. C. (2016). “Skankalicious”: Erotic capital in women’s flat track roller derby. Leisure Sciences, 38, 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1113149
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504.supp(Supplemental)
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books.
Price, J., Patterson, R., Regnerus, M., & Walley, J. (2016). How much more XXX is generation X consuming? Evidence of changing attitudes and behaviors related to pornography since 1973. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.1003773
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25, 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500607
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behaviorual Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling a bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.18
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. #260, UCLA Statistics Series.
Sevi, B., Aral, T., & Eskenazi, T. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.053
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.
Spector, I. P., Carey, M. P., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 22, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239608414655
Strager, S. (2003). What men watch when they watch pornography. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 7, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-003-1007-5
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Fifth Editon). Pearson.
Takiff, H. A., Sanchez, D. T., & Stewart, T. L. (2001). What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/14716402.00015
Tracey, T. J. G. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000135
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003031003001
Wentland, J. J., Herold, E. S., Desmarais, S., & Milhausen, R. R. (2009). Differentiating highly sexual women from less sexual women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 169–182. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-01507-002&site=ehost-live
Wigderson, S., & Katz, J. (2015). Feminine ideology and sexual assault: Are more traditional college women at greater risk? Violence Against Women, 21(5), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215573333
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: “Kristin E. Silver affiliation and name of the author has been updated.”
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Levant, R., Pryor, S. & Silver, K.E. The Woman’s Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire-Short Form (WNSQ-SF): Development, Variance Composition, Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance. Gend. Issues 39, 409–436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09298-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09298-7