Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-05-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0323834
Andrew Putman, Adam Cole, Shilpa Dogra
{"title":"Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.","authors":"Andrew Putman, Adam Cole, Shilpa Dogra","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0323834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A growing body of research indicates that sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) influence health through a variety of distinct mechanisms. Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) techniques could examine these influences, however, there is a lack of nuanced and easily implementable measurement tools for health research. To address this gap, we created the Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Tool - 5 item (SGBA-5).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This research aims to assess the validity and reliability of the SGBA-5 for use in health sciences research where sex or gender are not primary variables of interest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Delphi consensus study was conducted with Canadian researchers (n = 14). The Delphi experts rated the validity of each SGBA-5 item on a 5-point Likert scale each round, receiving summary statistics of other experts' responses after the first round. A conservative threshold for consensus agreement (75% rating an item 4+ of 5) was used given the novelty of this scale's items. Reliability was assessed through a two-armed test-retest study. The university student arm (n = 89) was conducted in-person (on paper), and the older adult arm (n = 71) was conducted online (digitally).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Delphi study ended after three rounds; experts reached consensus agreement on the validity of the biological sex item of the SGBA-5 (93%) and consensus non-agreement on each of the gendered aspect of health items (identity: 64%, expression: 64%, roles: 50%, relations: 57%). Both the student arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) and the older adult arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) of the test-retest study indicated that all items were reliable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The novel SGBA-5 tool demonstrated reliability across all scale items and validity of the biological sex item. The gendered aspects of health items may be valid. Future research can further develop the SGBA-5 as a tool for use in health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 5","pages":"e0323834"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084046/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323834","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A growing body of research indicates that sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) influence health through a variety of distinct mechanisms. Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) techniques could examine these influences, however, there is a lack of nuanced and easily implementable measurement tools for health research. To address this gap, we created the Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Tool - 5 item (SGBA-5).

Objectives: This research aims to assess the validity and reliability of the SGBA-5 for use in health sciences research where sex or gender are not primary variables of interest.

Methods: A Delphi consensus study was conducted with Canadian researchers (n = 14). The Delphi experts rated the validity of each SGBA-5 item on a 5-point Likert scale each round, receiving summary statistics of other experts' responses after the first round. A conservative threshold for consensus agreement (75% rating an item 4+ of 5) was used given the novelty of this scale's items. Reliability was assessed through a two-armed test-retest study. The university student arm (n = 89) was conducted in-person (on paper), and the older adult arm (n = 71) was conducted online (digitally).

Results: The Delphi study ended after three rounds; experts reached consensus agreement on the validity of the biological sex item of the SGBA-5 (93%) and consensus non-agreement on each of the gendered aspect of health items (identity: 64%, expression: 64%, roles: 50%, relations: 57%). Both the student arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) and the older adult arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) of the test-retest study indicated that all items were reliable.

Conclusions: The novel SGBA-5 tool demonstrated reliability across all scale items and validity of the biological sex item. The gendered aspects of health items may be valid. Future research can further develop the SGBA-5 as a tool for use in health research.

SGBA-5的初始有效性和可靠性测试。
背景:越来越多的研究表明,性别(生理)和性别(社会文化)通过各种不同的机制影响健康。性别和基于性别的分析(SGBA)技术可以检查这些影响,然而,缺乏细致入微和易于实施的健康研究测量工具。为了解决这一差距,我们创建了性别和基于性别的分析工具-5项目(SGBA-5)。目的:本研究旨在评估SGBA-5在健康科学研究中使用的有效性和可靠性,其中性别或性别不是主要感兴趣的变量。方法:与加拿大研究人员(n = 14)进行德尔菲共识研究。德尔菲专家每轮以5分李克特量表对每个SGBA-5项目的有效性进行评分,并在第一轮后收到其他专家回答的汇总统计。考虑到该量表项目的新颖性,使用了一个保守的共识阈值(75%对项目4+ 5进行评分)。通过双臂测试-重测试研究评估可靠性。大学生组(n = 89)进行面对面(书面)调查,老年人组(n = 71)进行在线(数字)调查。结果:德尔菲研究3轮后结束;专家们对SGBA-5生物性别项目的有效性达成共识(93%),对健康项目的每个性别方面达成共识(认同:64%,表达:64%,角色:50%,关系:57%)。重测研究的学生组(性别项目:[公式:见文],性别项目:[公式:见文])和老年人组(性别项目:[公式:见文],性别项目:[公式:见文])都表明所有项目都是可靠的。结论:新型SGBA-5工具在所有量表项目和生物性别项目上显示了信度。保健项目的性别方面可能是有效的。未来的研究可以进一步开发SGBA-5作为一种用于卫生研究的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信