"I feel like it is asking if he is a stalker … but I also feel like it is asking if he cares": exploring young South African women and men's perceptions of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale.
Gender
Gender Equity
Measurement
Sexual Relationship Power
South Africa
Youth
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 07 2022
16 07 2022
Historique:
received:
01
11
2021
accepted:
24
06
2022
entrez:
16
7
2022
pubmed:
17
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gender inequity and the subsequent health impacts disproportionately affect communities in the Global South. However, most gender equity measures, such as Pulerwitz' (2000) Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS), are developed and validated in the Global North and then applied in Global South settings without investigation of context applicability or validity. This study examines the SRPS' validity evidence, comprehensiveness, and contemporary relevance for young South African women and men. Between 2019 and 2021, 38 cognitive interviews (CIs) were conducted among previous participants of a South African youth cohort study 'AYAZAZI' (2015-2017) to explore youth's perceptions of the SRPS. The SRPS measures women's perceptions of their partner's controlling behaviours, and men's perceptions of their own controlling behaviours. Using CIs, participants responded to a 13-item adaptation of the SRPS for use among South African youth (strongly agree-strongly disagree), and then were asked to think-aloud their reasoning for responses, their understanding and perceived relevance of each item, and made overall suggestions for scale adaptations. An item appraisal coding process was applied, whereby Cognitive Coding assessed the types of cognitive problems youth had with understanding the items, and Question Feature Coding assessed which item features caused problems for participant understandings. Finally, youth recommendations for scale adaptations were summarized. Overall, 21 women and 17 men aged 21-30 participated in CIs in Durban and Soweto, South Africa. Cognitive Coding revealed 1. Comprehension issues, and 2. Judgements related to items' applicability to lived experiences and identities (e.g., being unmarried). Question Feature Coding revealed items' 1. Lack of clarity or vagueness in wording and 2. Logical problems in assumptions leading to multiple interpretations (e.g., item 'my partner always need to know where I am' interpreted as both controlling and caring behaviour). Multiple, overlapping issues revealed how many items failed to "fit" within the present-day living realities of South African youth. Youth recommended several item adaptations and additions, including strength-based items, to existing measures of gender equity and relationship power. Given identified issues, several adaptations including revising items to be more inclusive, contemporary, context specific, relational, and strength-based are needed to validly measure gender equity and power dynamics within the relationships of South African youth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gender inequity and the subsequent health impacts disproportionately affect communities in the Global South. However, most gender equity measures, such as Pulerwitz' (2000) Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS), are developed and validated in the Global North and then applied in Global South settings without investigation of context applicability or validity. This study examines the SRPS' validity evidence, comprehensiveness, and contemporary relevance for young South African women and men.
METHODS
Between 2019 and 2021, 38 cognitive interviews (CIs) were conducted among previous participants of a South African youth cohort study 'AYAZAZI' (2015-2017) to explore youth's perceptions of the SRPS. The SRPS measures women's perceptions of their partner's controlling behaviours, and men's perceptions of their own controlling behaviours. Using CIs, participants responded to a 13-item adaptation of the SRPS for use among South African youth (strongly agree-strongly disagree), and then were asked to think-aloud their reasoning for responses, their understanding and perceived relevance of each item, and made overall suggestions for scale adaptations. An item appraisal coding process was applied, whereby Cognitive Coding assessed the types of cognitive problems youth had with understanding the items, and Question Feature Coding assessed which item features caused problems for participant understandings. Finally, youth recommendations for scale adaptations were summarized.
RESULTS
Overall, 21 women and 17 men aged 21-30 participated in CIs in Durban and Soweto, South Africa. Cognitive Coding revealed 1. Comprehension issues, and 2. Judgements related to items' applicability to lived experiences and identities (e.g., being unmarried). Question Feature Coding revealed items' 1. Lack of clarity or vagueness in wording and 2. Logical problems in assumptions leading to multiple interpretations (e.g., item 'my partner always need to know where I am' interpreted as both controlling and caring behaviour). Multiple, overlapping issues revealed how many items failed to "fit" within the present-day living realities of South African youth. Youth recommended several item adaptations and additions, including strength-based items, to existing measures of gender equity and relationship power.
CONCLUSION
Given identified issues, several adaptations including revising items to be more inclusive, contemporary, context specific, relational, and strength-based are needed to validly measure gender equity and power dynamics within the relationships of South African youth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35842627
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13686-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13686-9
pmc: PMC9288208
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1368Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Glob Health Action. 2021 Jan 1;14(1):1936792
pubmed: 34431754
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015 Jul;42(3):346-54
pubmed: 24435227
AIDS Behav. 2016 Aug;20(8):1785-95
pubmed: 27209467
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 25;14(9):e0221554
pubmed: 31553723
AIDS Behav. 2022 Mar;26(3):775-785
pubmed: 34426864
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Feb;13(2):181-188
pubmed: 33454077
Trop Med Int Health. 2021 Jun;26(6):687-700
pubmed: 33666301
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:863-7
pubmed: 25160310
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Nov;10(11):1996-2004
pubmed: 15550214
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 3;13(10):e0204956
pubmed: 30281677
Trop Med Int Health. 2006 Jan;11(1):3-16
pubmed: 16398750
Glob Health Action. 2014 Aug 21;7:23719
pubmed: 25150027
Glob Public Health. 2019 Oct;14(10):1454-1478
pubmed: 30955450
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jul 25;14:751
pubmed: 25059423
J Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2013;25(1):43-54
pubmed: 25860306
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2022 Jul;23(3):920-937
pubmed: 33353490
Afr J AIDS Res. 2016;15(1):67-75
pubmed: 27002359
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(11):1675-83
pubmed: 21764489
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Mar 23;14(4):
pubmed: 28333100
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 19;13(7):e0199733
pubmed: 30024908
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(11):1825-32
pubmed: 21982633
J Int AIDS Soc. 2010 Feb 09;13:6
pubmed: 20181124
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Apr;70(4):810-9
pubmed: 8636900
Am J Public Health. 2014 Mar;104(3):e6
pubmed: 24432946
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016 Sep 28;2(2):e154
pubmed: 27683173
BMC Public Health. 2022 Jul 16;22(1):1368
pubmed: 35842627
J Surv Stat Methodol. 2020 Oct 21;9(5):961-991
pubmed: 34912940
J Interpers Violence. 2014 Mar;29(5):866-88
pubmed: 24227592
Afr J AIDS Res. 2017 Mar;16(1):71-79
pubmed: 28367751
Health Psychol. 2016 Jul;35(7):751-760
pubmed: 27111184
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Apr 27;9(4):e27173
pubmed: 33904827
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 23;10(11):e0139430
pubmed: 26599394
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jan;56(1):125-34
pubmed: 12435556
J Adolesc Health. 2017 Feb;60(2S2):S15-S21
pubmed: 28109335
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 10;11(2):e045893
pubmed: 33568379
SSM Popul Health. 2019 Nov 20;9:100493
pubmed: 31993486
S Afr Med J. 2012 May 15;102(6 Pt 2):341-3
pubmed: 22668897
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jun 20;12:462
pubmed: 22892159
Glob Public Health. 2018 Jul;13(7):788-803
pubmed: 27533487
Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539-69
pubmed: 21838546
Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Dec;35(6):1461-8
pubmed: 17008362
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 29;14:1325
pubmed: 25544716
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Jun;38(6):459-66
pubmed: 21258268
Cult Health Sex. 2020 Jan;22(1):31-47
pubmed: 30762491
Psychol Health Med. 2015;20(3):369-79
pubmed: 25025831
AIDS Behav. 2018 Jun;22(6):1858-1869
pubmed: 28161801
SSM Popul Health. 2019 Nov 20;9:100494
pubmed: 31993487
AIDS Care. 2010 Nov;22(11):1379-85
pubmed: 20730637
Int J STD AIDS. 2020 Jun;31(7):627-636
pubmed: 32403988
Lancet. 2010 Jul 3;376(9734):41-8
pubmed: 20557928
SAHARA J. 2008 Dec;5(4):162-77
pubmed: 19194598
Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):1061-71
pubmed: 15482073
Arch Sex Behav. 2015 Feb;44(2):267-94
pubmed: 25331613
BMC Public Health. 2014 Sep 12;14:947
pubmed: 25214147
Media Cult Soc. 2017 Apr;39(3):408-422
pubmed: 29708133
J Int AIDS Soc. 2010 Nov 15;13:44
pubmed: 21078150