Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T21:25:47.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bem Sex Role Inventory Validation in the International Mobility in Aging Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

Tamer Ahmed ,
Afshin Vafaei ,
Emmanuelle Belanger ,
Susan P. Phillips  and
Maria-Victoria Zunzunegui
Tamer Ahmed*
Affiliation:
Pharmacist, PhD Candidate, Université de Montréal
Afshin Vafaei
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Ontario
Emmanuelle Belanger
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Fellow, Institut de recherche en santé publique, Université de Montréal
Susan P. Phillips
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Queen’s University
Maria-Victoria Zunzunegui
Affiliation:
Institut de recherché en santé publique, Université de Montréal
*
†La correspondance et les demandes de tire-à-part doivent être adressées à : / Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to: Tamer Ahmed, Pharmacist, PhD Candidate of Epidemiology Institut de recherche en santé publique Université de Montréal 7101 Ave du Parc, salle 3111 Montréal, QC H3N 1X9 (tis.ahmed@umontreal.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the measurement structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) with different factor analysis methods. Most previous studies on validity applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the BSRI. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties and construct validity of the 12-item short-form BSRI in a sample administered to 1,995 older adults from wave 1 of the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS). We used Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency reliability and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess psychometric properties. EFA revealed a three-factor model, further confirmed by CFA and compared with the original two-factor structure model. Results revealed that a two-factor solution (instrumentality-expressiveness) has satisfactory construct validity and superior fit to data compared to the three-factor solution. The two-factor solution confirms expected gender differences in older adults. The 12-item BSRI provides a brief, psychometrically sound, and reliable instrument in international samples of older adults.

Résumé

Cette étude, en utilisant différentes méthodes d’analyse des facteurs, a examiné la structure de mesure de l’Inventaire des rôles sexués de Bem (IRSB). La plupart des études antérieures sur la validité ont appliqué analyse factorielle exploratoire (AFE) d’examiner l’IRSB. Il s’agissait d’évaluer les propriétés psychométriques et la validité de la construction de la forme courte IRSB comprenant 12 articles dans un échantillon administré à 1,995 personnes âgées de la vague 1 de l’Initiative internationale de la mobilité en viellissement (IIMV). Nous avons utilisé l’alpha de Cronbach pour évaluer la fiabilité et la cohérence interne et une analyse factorielle confirmatoire (AFC) afin d’évaluer les propriétés psychometriques. AFE a révélé un modèle comprenant trois facteurs, qu’on a confirmé par l’AFC, puis ceci est comparé avec le modèle structurel initial de deux facteurs. Les résultats ont révélé qu’une solution à deux facteurs (instrumentalité-expression) a montré satisfaisante validité conceptuelle et un ajustement supérieur aux données, par rapport à la solution à trois facteurs. La solution à deux facteurs confirme différences attendues entre les sexes chez les personnes âgées. L’IRSB composé de 12 articles fournit un instrument bref, psychométrique et fiable dans les échantillons internationaux des personnes âgées.

Keywords

agingBSRIgender rolesgender stereotypesstructure validationvieillissementIRSBrôles de gendrestéréotypes de gendrevalidation de la structure
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 348 - 360
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annandale, E., & Hunt, K. (1990). Masculinity, femininity and sex: An exploration of their relative contribution to explaining gender differences in health. Sociology of Health Illness, 12(1), 24–46.Google Scholar
Ballardreisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A psychological construct revisited. Sex Roles, 27(5–6), 291–306.Google Scholar
Bazik, N. (2011). Gender role attitudes in youth (unpublished doctoral dissertation). American University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: Reply. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 1047–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.Google Scholar
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314, 572.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Chapel Hill, NC: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W., Thorndike, R. M., & Lonner, W. J. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Piroggood, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(3), 272–285.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, L. F., Vafaei, A., Guerra, R., Freire, A., & Phillips, S. P. (2013). Gender differences: Examination of the 12-item Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI-12) in an older Brazilian population. Plos One, 8(10), e76356.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.Google Scholar
Chant, S. H., & Craske, N. (2003). Gender in Latin America. London, UK: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 872–887.Google Scholar
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2009). Exploratory and confirmatory studies of the structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory short form with two divergent samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 696–705.Google Scholar
Colley, A., Mulhern, G., Maltby, J., & Wood, A. M. (2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 384–387.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
De Yebenes, M. J., Otero, A., Zunzunegui, M. V., Rodriguez-Laso, A., Sanchez-Sanchez, F., & Del Ser, T. (2003). Validation of a short cognitive tool for the screening of dementia in elderly people with low educational level. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(10), 925–936.Google Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. Vienna, AUT: Sage.Google Scholar
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188.Google Scholar
Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 209–226.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 543–558.Google Scholar
Feather, N. T. (1978). Factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Implications for the study of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. Australian Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 241–254.Google Scholar
Galea, S., & Tracy, M. (2007). Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(9), 643–653.Google Scholar
Gale-Ross, R., Baird, A., & Towson, S. (2009). Gender role, life satisfaction, and wellness: Androgyny in a southwestern Ontario sample. Canadian Journal on Aging, 28(2), 135–146.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12(3), 427–439.Google Scholar
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
Helliwell, B., Aylesworth, R., McDowell, I., Baumgarten, M., & Sykes, E. (2001). Correlates of nonparticipation in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. International Psychogeriatrics, 13, 49–56.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1964). Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17(1), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Holt, C. L. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39(11–12), 929–941.Google Scholar
Hoyle, R. H. (2000). 16-Confirmatory factor analysis. In Tinsley, H. E. A. & Brown, S. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465–497). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 684–718.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.Google Scholar
Katsurada, E., & Sugihara, Y. (1999). A preliminary validation of the Bem sex role inventory in Japanese culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 641–645.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lindsey, L. L. (2005). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. Maryville, MO: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1985). The structure of masculinity femininity: An application of confirmatory factor-analysis to higher-order factor structures and factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20(4), 427–449.Google Scholar
Mateo, M., & Fernández, J. (1991). La dimensionalidad de los conceptos de masculinidad y feminidad. Investigaciones Psicológicas, 9, 95–116.Google Scholar
Maznah, I., & Choo, P. F. (1986). The factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). International Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 31–41.Google Scholar
Miluka, J. (2009). Education, migration, and labor markets in Albania: A gender perspective. Washington, DC: ProQuest.Google Scholar
Netemeyer, R. G., O’Bearden, W., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387–405.Google Scholar
Özkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Turkey. Sex Roles, 52(1–2), 103–110.Google Scholar
Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1979). The social learning theory of sex differences: Imitation is alive and well. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1699–1712.Google Scholar
Ratliff, E. S., & Conley, J. (1981). The structure of masculinity-femininity: Multidimensionality and gender differences. Social Behavior and Personality, 9(1), 41–47.Google Scholar
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. East Lansing, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Särnhult, V. (2014). Gender and power-images of female politicians in Colombia: A critical discourse analysis (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.Google Scholar
Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 107–121.Google Scholar
Sellars, B. C. (2008). A longitudinal view of sex role development: Demographic differences and the influence of social relations. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.Google Scholar
Silova, I., & Magno, C. (2004). Gender equity unmasked: Democracy, gender, and education in Central/Southeastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 417–442.Google Scholar
Silvia, E. S. M., & MacCallum, R. C. (1988). Some factors affecting the success of specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(3), 297–326.Google Scholar
Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 1–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of masculinity and femininity. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 59–95.Google Scholar
Stecklov, G. U. Y., Carletto, C., Azzarri, C., & Davis, B. (2010). Gender and migration from Albania. Demography, 47(4), 935–961.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.Google Scholar
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Femininity/masculinity. New York, NY: Macmillan Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vafaei, A., Alvarado, B., Tomás, C., Muro, C., Martinez, B., & Zunzunegui, M. V. (2014). The validity of the 12-item Bem Sex Role Inventory in older Spanish population. An examination of the androgyny model. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59(2), 257–263.Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Winston-Salem, NC: Sage.Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Winston-Salem, NC: Sage.Google Scholar
Windle, M., & Sinnot, J. D. (1985). A psychometric study of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory with an older adult sample. Journals of Gerontology, 40(3), 336–343.Google Scholar
Wong, R., Pelaez, M., Palloni, A., & Markides, K. (2006). Survey data for the study of aging in Latin America and the Caribbean: Selected studies. Journal of Aging and Health, 18(2), 157–179.Google Scholar
Zait, A., & Bertea, P. E. (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Management & Marketing Journal, 9(2), 217–224.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Norvilitis, J. M., & Jin, S. H. (2001). Measuring gender orientation with the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Chinese culture. Sex Roles, 44(3–4), 237–251.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ahmed supplementary material

Supplementary Table

Download Ahmed supplementary material(File)
File 46.6 KB