{"title":"SGBA-5的初始有效性和可靠性测试。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.
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.
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