A new measurement of an indirect measure of condom use and its relationships with barriers

7Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

One of the challenges facing researchers in the domain of human immunodeficiency virus prevention is the assessment of condom use in an unbiased self-reported manner. The current study presents the development and preliminary validation of an indirect condom use test (I-CUTE), designed to assess condom use tendencies and to overcome self-report biases. Two samples were included using correlational designs. In sample 1, 88 students from European university completed the I-CUTE with questionnaires of condom use barriers, social desirability, and condom use negotiation self-efficacy. In sample 2, 212 students from sub-Saharan universities completed the I-CUTE with questionnaires of condom use barriers and knowledge. The I-CUTE included 17 pictures of human figures in relation to condom use, where participants had to choose one of the four a-priori given sentences reflecting the figures’ thoughts. This represented a semi-projective, yet standardized test. In sample 1, I-CUTE scores were inversely related to barriers, positively correlated with condom use negotiation self-efficacy and unrelated to social desirability. In sample 2, I-CUTE scores were inversely related to barriers and unrelated to knowledge scores. In a multiple regression, condom use barriers had a unique contribution to explaining variance in I-CUTE scores, beyond the contribution of background variables and knowledge. These results support the preliminary reliability and validity of the I-CUTE tool in a variety of cultures, and reveal its lack of bias by social desirability and the importance of condom use barriers in condom use tendencies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Levy, E., Gidron, Y., & Olley, B. O. (2017). A new measurement of an indirect measure of condom use and its relationships with barriers. Sahara J, 14(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2017.1375970

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free