Skip to main content

The Woman’s Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire-Short Form (WNSQ-SF): Development, Variance Composition, Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (2nd ed.). New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Catania, J. A. (1998). Health protective sexual communication scale. In J. Nageotte (Ed.), Sexual Risk (pp. 544–547). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

  35. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behaviorual Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. #260, UCLA Statistics Series.

  48. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Fifth Editon). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tracey, T. J. G. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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

  58. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Levant.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 51 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levant, R., Pryor, S. & Silver, K. The Woman’s Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire-Short Form (WNSQ-SF): Development, Variance Composition, Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance. Gend. Issues (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09298-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09298-7

Keywords

  • Women’s sexuality
  • Gender norms
  • Scale development
  • Structural equation modeling
  • Measurement invariance/equivalence