Richard A Crosby1, Stephanie A Sanders, Cynthia A Graham, Robin Milhausen, William L Yarber, Leandro Mena. 1. From the *Department of Health Behavior, College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY; † Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention at Indiana University; ‡ The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction; §Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; ¶Department of Psychology, Southhampton University, Southhampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; ∥Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada; **Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; and ††College of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid scale measures of barriers to condom use are not available for young black men who have sex with men (YBMSM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Condom Barriers Scales for application with YBMSM. METHODS:A clinic-based sample of 600 YBMSM completed a computer-assisted self-interview. The primary measure was a 14-item abbreviated version of the Condom Barriers Scale. Reliability and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: All 3 subscales were reliable: partner-related barriers (Cronbach α=0.73), sensation-related barriers (α=0.70), and motivation-related barriers (α =0.81). A complete absence of barriers was common: 47.0% (partner-related), 30.7% (sensation-related), and 46.5% (motivation-related). Dichotomized subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condomless insertive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001) and any condomless receptive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001). The subscales were significantly associated with these measures of condomless sex preserved at a continuous level (all Ps <0.001, except for sensation barriers associated with condomless receptive anal sex = 0.03). Further, the subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condom use problems (all Ps <0.001) and a measure of condomless oral sex (all Ps <0.001, except for partner-related barriers=0.31). Finally, the sensation-related barriers subscale was significantly associated with testing positive for Chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 identified subscales yielded adequate reliability and strong evidence of validity, thereby suggesting the utility of these brief measures for use in observational and experimental research with YBMSM.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid scale measures of barriers to condom use are not available for young black men who have sex with men (YBMSM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Condom Barriers Scales for application with YBMSM. METHODS: A clinic-based sample of 600 YBMSM completed a computer-assisted self-interview. The primary measure was a 14-item abbreviated version of the Condom Barriers Scale. Reliability and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: All 3 subscales were reliable: partner-related barriers (Cronbach α=0.73), sensation-related barriers (α=0.70), and motivation-related barriers (α =0.81). A complete absence of barriers was common: 47.0% (partner-related), 30.7% (sensation-related), and 46.5% (motivation-related). Dichotomized subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condomless insertive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001) and any condomless receptive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001). The subscales were significantly associated with these measures of condomless sex preserved at a continuous level (all Ps <0.001, except for sensation barriers associated with condomless receptive anal sex = 0.03). Further, the subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condom use problems (all Ps <0.001) and a measure of condomless oral sex (all Ps <0.001, except for partner-related barriers=0.31). Finally, the sensation-related barriers subscale was significantly associated with testing positive for Chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 identified subscales yielded adequate reliability and strong evidence of validity, thereby suggesting the utility of these brief measures for use in observational and experimental research with YBMSM.
Authors: Richard A Crosby; Ralph J DiClemente; Gina M Wingood; Laura F Salazar; Kathy Harrington; Susan L Davies; M Kim Oh Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2003-12
Authors: Larry K Brown; Ralph DiClemente; Richard Crosby; M Isabel Fernandez; David Pugatch; Sylvia Cohn; Celia Lescano; Scott Royal; Jacqueline R Murphy; Barbara Silver; William E Schlenger Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Jenny A Higgins; Margo Mullinax; James Trussell; J Kenneth Davidson; Nelwyn B Moore Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Richard A Crosby; Robin R Milhausen; Cynthia A Graham; William L Yarber; Stephanie A Sanders; Richard Charnigo; Lydia A Shrier Journal: Sex Health Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: R Crosby; L A Shrier; R Charnigo; S A Sanders; C A Graham; R Milhausen; W L Yarber Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Richard A Crosby; Cynthia A Graham; William L Yarber; Stephanie A Sanders; Robin R Milhausen; Leandro Mena Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthew M Hamill; Fengming Hu; Afoke Kokogho; Elizabeth Shoyemi; Charles Ekeh; Manhattan E Charurat; Merlin L Robb; Sylvia Adebajo; Stefan D Baral; Rebecca G Nowak; Trevor A Crowell Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.771