Beth Baldwin Tigges PhD, RN, PNP, BC

1. “I’M NEVER GOING TO GET PREGNANT LIKE HER”: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE SOCIAL COMPARISON USES SCALE Beth Baldwin Tigges PhD, RN, PNP, BC Interim Sr. Associate Dean for Research, Associate Professor UNM College of Nursing Research Assistants: Aimee Adams MSN, CNM; Kelly Scheder MSN, CFNP; Carol Miller BSN, RN, Angela Stevens BSN, RN, Jennifer Chait, Pamela Agee BSN, RN Funded by NIH/NINR, R15 NR05054-01A2

2. Background and Specific Aims • Many pregnancy prevention programs not effective—need theoretically based and practical interventions • Adolescents’ social comparisons may influence their perceptions and behavioral choices • No developed tools to measure motives for social comparison Specific Aims • To develop a reliable and valid instrument—Social Comparison Motives Scale (SCMS)—to measure adolescents’ motives for social comparison related to pregnancy prevention. • To conduct pilot analyses of the relationships between adolescents’ motives (SCMS) and stages of change for effective contraceptive use (OCP, Depo, patch, condoms).

3. Part 1: Initial Item Development • 8 focus groups (4 male, 4 female) of English-speaking 9th graders at public high school (N = 50; 56% female; 54% Hispanic white; 6% Native Amer; 33% sexually active) • “Imagine you are someone who has to make decisions about sexual activity and avoiding pregnancy. Why would you compare upward…; downward…; or laterally…?” • Content analysis (N4 software)8 Dimensions; 54 Items • 5 content validity experts; CVI=1.0 ( all items 3-4 on 4 point) • 6 dimensions; 35 items (1 = never; 5 = very often) • Future Consequences “To think about my future” • Distancing “To show me what not to do” • Self-Enhancement “To feel good about myself” • Modeling “To give me a goal” • Self-Evaluation “To see my strengths and weaknesses” • Similarity-Identification ”To show me that I have a lot in common with someone else”

4. Part II: Initial Testing • Sample: 431 9th-10th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 53% female; 66% Hisp White; 8% Native Amer; 31% free/red lunch; 45% sexually active • Item Analysis: All ranged 1-5; M 2.6 – 3.61 (SD 1.02 – 1.47); No floor or ceiling effects • Exploratory Factor Analysis • Common Factor-Principal Axis Factoring • Oblique Rotation • Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (c2 = 6211.4, p = .00) • Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (sample size relative to # items) = .94 • Measure of Sampling Adequacy: (items correlate) All item MSA’s > .88 • Kaiser-Guttman: Eigen >1 • Item-to-factor loadings > .40 Future Self; a = .85 Modeling; a = .71 Self-Enhanc; a = .82 Sim-Identif; a = .76 Distancing; a = .75 19-item a = .91

5. Part III: Confirmatory FA Using SEM • Sample: 355 9th-10th graders-public high; M age=15.3; 50% female; 72% Hisp White; 10% Native Amer; 80% free/red lunch; 51% sexually active • Recursive models; maximum likelihood estimates • SEM RESULTS • Multi-group with tests of constrained models; 5 factors; 15 items • NFI=.92; CFI=.96; RMSEA=.04 (CI=.034-.046; p=.99) • No significant changes in C2 between unconstrained and constrained models • ADDITIONAL VALIDITY TESTING • Convergent validity: Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (r=.50) • Discriminant validity: Rosenberg SES (r=.15)

6. Part III: Ho Testing & Conclusions • CONCLUSIONS • Adolescents talk very freely about comparisons • 5-Factor, 15-item model demonstrated good fit with invariant factor loadings, variances, and covariances across two samples of 9th and 10th graders • 15-item Social Comparison Motives Scale (SCMS) with demonstrated reliability, content, and construct validity • Continued testing in additional samples: replication, state vs. trait, link with behavior MEANS PLOTS • 136 sexually active; ANOVA – Differences in social comparison use between stages of change for effective BC use [F(2, 135)=2.701; p=.048] • Eta squared = .06 (medium effect size) • Action stage (M=3.51) used more social comparison than pre-contemplation (M=2.91) (post-hoc Dunnett-C < .05)