Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:36:35.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS): Construct Validation, Sensitivity Analyses and other Psychometric Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

João Manuel de Oliveira ,
Diniz Lopes ,
Carlos Gonçalves Costa  and
Conceição Nogueira
João Manuel de Oliveira*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Diniz Lopes
Affiliation:
ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Portugal)
Carlos Gonçalves Costa
Affiliation:
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Conceição Nogueira
Affiliation:
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to João Manuel de Oliveira. CIPsi, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga (Portugal). E-mail: joao.m.oliveira@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Mohr and Fassinger (2006), identity is seen as both self-identification and collective identification with values, beliefs, traits or behaviours and attachments. Their Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) multidimensional identity model accounts for important variables regarding the constitution of identities. This model not only accesses numerous dimensions of the lives of LGB individuals, but is also based on a body of research that recognizes how LGB difficulties are caused by societal intolerance and marginalization (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS; Kendra & Mohr, 2008) constitutes an operationalization of this multidimensional model, and the aim of this article is to present its construct validity by analysing its factor structure using a sample of Portuguese lesbian, gay and bisexual participants. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as from factor invariance analysis across sub-samples are presented. In a general way, the factor structure obtained in this study follows the original proposal of Kendra and Mohr's (2008) LGBIS. Moreover, scale sensitivity analyses are presented in order to check for eventual differences in the factor structure and/or factor intercorrelations regarding participant gender and sexual orientation. These results are then discussed in the light of LGB identity models.

Según Mohr y Fassinger (2006), la identidad es vista como la auto-identificación y la identificación colectiva con valores, creencias, rasgos o comportamientos y apegos. Su modelo multidimensional de identidad de Lesbianas, Gays y Bisexuales (LGB) explica variables importantes con respecto a la constitución de identidades. Este modelo no sólo accede a múltiples dimensiones de la vida de las personas LGB, pero también se basa en un cuerpo de investigación que reconoce que las dificultades de LGB son causadas por la intolerancia social y la marginación (Mohr y Fassinger, 2000). La escala de Identidad de Lesbianas, Gays y Bisexuales (LGBIS; Kendra, y Mohr, 2008) constituye una puesta en marcha de este modelo multidimensional y el objetivo de este artículo es presentar su validez de constructo mediante el análisis de su estructura factorial utilizando una muestra de participantes lesbianas, gays y bisexuales portugueses. Se presentan los resultados de los análisis factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios, así como los del análisis factorial invariante a través de sub-muestras. De manera general, la estructura factorial obtenida en este estudio sigue la propuesta original del LGBIS de Kendra y Mohr (2008). Además, se presentan los análisis de sensibilidad de la escala con el fin de comprobar posibles diferencias en la estructura de factores y / o en intercorrelaciones en relación con el género y la orientación sexual de los participantes. Estos resultados son discutidos con respecto a los modelos de identidad LGB.

Keywords

lesbiangaybisexualmultidimensional identity modelsvalidationlesbianahomosexualbisexualmodelos multidimensionales de identidadvalidación
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 334 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238Google Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M. W., & DuToit, S. H. C. (1992). Automated fitting of nonstandard models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 269–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2702_13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, B., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthèn, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation:Atheoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 143–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551214Google Scholar
Carneiro, N. S., & Menezes, I. (2007). From an oppressed citizenship to affirmative identities: lesbian and gay political participation in Portugal. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 65–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Clarke, V., Ellis, S., Peel, E., & Riggs, D. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer psychology: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative and “normality”. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 47–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9110-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v07n02_06Google Scholar
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.36.2.241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the development of same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 297–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of a model of sexual identity development for a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. H. (1969). The lesbian personality. British Journal of Psychiatry, 115, 1433–1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.115.529.1433Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: User's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kendra, M. S., & Mohr, J. J. (2008, August). Development of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Poster session presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modelling, concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 16–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.97.3.562Google Scholar
Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factor invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825Google Scholar
Mohr, J., & Daly, C. (2008). Sexual minority stress and changes in relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25, 989–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407508100311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1085–1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. F. (1997). Lesbian coming out as a multidimensional process. Journal of Homosexuality, 33, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v33n02_01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments instructural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000099274002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D., & Seidman, S. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of lesbian and gay studies. London, England: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006) Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552298Google Scholar
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegelman, M. (1972). Adjustment of homosexual and heterosexual women. British Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 447–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.120.558.477Google Scholar
Sophie, J. (1987) Internalized homophobia and lesbian identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v14n01_05CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 42, 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a queer planet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within-group differences in sexual orientation and identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 44–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013498Google Scholar
Yung, Y. F., & Bentler, P. (1996). Bootstrapping techniques in analysis of mean and covariance structures. In Marcoulides, G. A. & Schumacker, R. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 125–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar