Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 493–505

Meanings Assigned by Undergraduates to Frequency Statements of Condom Use

  • Heather Cecil
  • Gregory D. Zimet
Article

Abstract

Studies of condom use must rely upon self-report data which may not be reliable and valid. This investigation examined how 192 undergraduates (17–48 years) interpret response categories (never, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, always) used in some surveys to assess frequency of condom use. Subjects completed a questionnaire that described a scenario of a couple who had engaged in sexual intercourse 20 times during the past 3 months. As part of the survey, there were 21 statements in which the stated number of times condoms were used varied from 0 to 20 (e.g., condoms were used 18 out of the 20 episodes of sexual intercourse). For each statement, subjects were instructed to circle the category they believed best matched the frequency with which condoms had been used: 31% indicated that using condoms 1 out of 20 times was an example of never using condoms; similarly, 23% indicated that using condoms 2 times out of the 20 encounters was an example of never using condoms, 40% indicated that condom use for 19 out of 20 encounters was always using condoms, whereas 23% applied the always label to condom use for 18 out of 20 encounters. These results generally support the validity of this type of condom use measurement, but suggest that caution is needed in interpretation. Implications of these findings are discussed with respect to health messages and research methodology.

SELF-REPORT VERBAL MEANING CONDOMS MEASUREMENT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abramson, P. R., and Herdt, G. (1990). The assessment of sexual practice s relevant to the transmission of AIDS: A global perspective. J. Sex Res. 27: 215–232.Google Scholar
  2. Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., Blair, E., and Stocking, C. (1978). Question threat and response bias. Public Opinion Quart. 42: 221–234.Google Scholar
  3. Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Marin, B., Coates, T. J., and Greenblatt, R. (1990a). Response bias in assessing sexual behaviors relevant to HIV transmission. Eval. Prog. Plann. 13: 19–29.Google Scholar
  4. Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., and Coates, T. J. (1990b). Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol. Bull. 108: 339–362.Google Scholar
  5. Clement, U. (1990). Surveys of heterosexual behaviour. Ann. Rev. Sex Res. 1: 45–74.Google Scholar
  6. Coyle, S. L., Boruch, R. F., and Turner, C. F. (1991). Methodological issues in AIDS surveys. In Coyle, S. L., Boruch, R. F., and Turner, C. F. (eds.), Evaluating AIDS Prevention Programs: Expanded Edition, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 207–316.Google Scholar
  7. DiClemente, R. J. (1991). Predictors of HIV-preventive sexual behavior in a high-risk adolescent population: The influence of perceived peer norms and sexual communication on incarcerated adolescents' consistent use of condoms. J. Adolescent Health 12: 385–390.Google Scholar
  8. DiClemente, R. J., Lodico, M., Grinstead, O. A., Harper, G., Rickman, R. L., Evans, P. E., and Coates, T. J. (1996). African-American adolescents re siding in high-risk urban environments do use condoms: Correlate s and predictors of condom use among adolescents in public housing developments. Pediatrics 98: 269–278.Google Scholar
  9. Farr, G., Gabelnick, H., Sturgen, K., and Dorflinger, L. (1994). Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom. Am. J. Public Health 84: 1960–1964.Google Scholar
  10. Fischl, M. A., Dickinson, G. M., Scott, G. B., Klimas, N., Fletcher, M. A., and Parks, W. (1987). Evaluation of heterosexual partners, children, and household contacts of adults with AIDS. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 257: 640–644.Google Scholar
  11. Fortenberry, J. D., Cecil, H, Zimet, G., and Orr, D. P. (1997). Concordance between self-report questionnaires and coital diaries for sexual behaviors of adolescent women with sexually transmitted diseases. In Bancroft, J. (ed.), Researching Sexual Behavior, Indiana University Press, IN, pp. 237–249.Google Scholar
  12. Kauth, M. R., St. Lawrence, J. S., and Kelly, J. A. (1991). Reliability of retrospective assessments of sexual HIV risk behavior: A comparison of biweekly, three-month, and twelve-month self-reports. AIDS Educ. Prevent. 3: 207–214.Google Scholar
  13. Konings, E., Bantebya, G., Carael, M., Bagenda, D., and Mertens, T. (1995). Validating population surveys for the measurement of HIV/STD prevention indicators. AIDS 9: 375–382.Google Scholar
  14. Mayes, S. D., Elsesser, V., Schaefer, J. H., Handford, H. A., and Michael-Good, L. (1992). Sexual practices and AIDS knowledge among women partners of HIV-infected hemophiliacs. Public Health Rep. 107: 504–514.Google Scholar
  15. Peterman, T. A., Stoneburner, R. L., Allen, J. R., Jaffe, H. W., and Curran, J. W. (1988). Risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission from heterosexual adults with transfusion-associated infections. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 259: 55–58.Google Scholar
  16. Pinkerton, S. D., and Abramson, P. R. (1997). Effectiveness of condoms in preve nting HIV transmission. Soc. Sci. Med. 44: 1303–1312.Google Scholar
  17. Saltzman, S. P., Stoddard, A. M., McCusker, J., Moon, M. W., and Mayer., K. H. (1987). Reliability of self-reported sexual behavior risk factors for HIV-1 infection in homosexual men. Public Health Rep. 102: 692–697.Google Scholar
  18. Saracco, A., Musicco, M., Nicolosi, A., Angarano, G., Arici, C., Gavazzeni, G., Costigliola, P., Gafa, S., Gervasoni, C., Luzzati, R., Piccinino, F., Puppo, F., Salassa, B., Sinicco, A., Stellini, R., Tirelli, U., Turbessi, G., Vugevani, G. M., Visco, G., Zerboni, R., and Lazzarin, A. (1993). Man-to-woman sexual transmission of HIV: Longitudinal study of 343 steady partners of infected men. J. AIDS Syndr. 6: 497–502.Google Scholar
  19. Schaeffer, N. C., and Charing, H. W. (1991). Two experiments in simplifying response categories: Intensity ratings and behavioral frequencies. Sociol. Perspect. 34: 165–182.Google Scholar
  20. Sheeran, P., and Abraham, C. (1994). Measurement of condom use in 72 studies of HIV-preventive behaviour: A critical review. Patient Educ. Couns. 24: 199–216.Google Scholar
  21. Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. (1974). Response Effects in Surveys, Aldine, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  22. Turner, C. F., Miller, H. G., and Moses, L. E. (Eds.). (1989). AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Wyatt, G. E. (1990). Maximizing appropriate populations and response s for sex research. In B. Voeller, J. M. Reinisch, and M. Gottlieb (eds.), AIDS and Sex: An Integrated Biomedical and Biobehavioral Approach, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
  24. Zenilman, J. M., Weisman, C. S., Rompalo, A. M., Ellish, N., Upchurch, D. M., Hook, E. W., III, and Celentano, D. (1994). Condom use to prevent incident STDs: The validity of self-reported condom use. Sex. Transm. Dis. 22(1): 15–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Cecil
  • Gregory D. Zimet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations