SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

McDermott RC, Wolfe G, Levant RF, Alshabani N, Richmond K. Psychol. Men Masc. 2021; 22(2): 331-344.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/men0000286

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Popular measures of masculinity and femininity ideologies have been validated primarily with cisgender (cis) samples. The present study assessed the measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) of two versions of the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI; Short and Very Brief Forms), and the Femininity Ideology Scale-Short Form, across gender broadly conceived to include cis, transgender (trans), and nonbinary gender identities. Participants (N = 1233, 34.3 % trans) were recruited from community and college samples in the United States. Correlated factors models of the MRNI-SF and FIS-SF evidenced the best fit to data in the total sample. The MRNI-SF only provided a good fit for cis individuals, and some items from the MRNI-VB and the FIS-SF were significant sources of local misfit among trans and non-binary participants. After removing these items, however, acceptable fit was achieved for each gender group. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (CFA's) revealed (a) broad support for configural invariance for the MRNI-VB (9/9 gender comparisons) and the FIS-SF (8/9), as well as general support for metric invariance for the MRNI-VB (7/9) and the FIS-SF (7/9). More advanced levels of invariance (scalar and residuals) were generally not supported for the MRNI-VB but were supported for the FIS-SF. The effect size of measurement non-invariance among all possible gender comparisons was generally small, with a few exceptions. Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVAS) revealed that cis men endorsed traditional gender ideologies to the greatest extent, followed by cis women, followed by trans participants. The results are discussed in relationship to prior literature, future research directions, applications to practice, and limitations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print