Evaluation of the Condom Barriers Scale for Young Black Men Who Have Sex With Men: Reliability and Validity of 3 Subscales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid scale measures of barriers to condom use are not available for young black men who have sex with men (YBMSM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Condom Barriers Scales for application with YBMSM. METHODS: A clinic-based sample of 600 YBMSM completed a computer-assisted self-interview. The primary measure was a 14-item abbreviated version of the Condom Barriers Scale. Reliability and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: All 3 subscales were reliable: partner-related barriers (Cronbach α=0.73), sensation-related barriers (α=0.70), and motivation-related barriers (α =0.81). A complete absence of barriers was common: 47.0% (partner-related), 30.7% (sensation-related), and 46.5% (motivation-related). Dichotomized subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condomless insertive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001) and any condomless receptive anal sex (all Ps < 0.001). The subscales were significantly associated with these measures of condomless sex preserved at a continuous level (all Ps <0.001, except for sensation barriers associated with condomless receptive anal sex = 0.03). Further, the subscales were significantly associated with reporting any condom use problems (all Ps <0.001) and a measure of condomless oral sex (all Ps <0.001, except for partner-related barriers=0.31). Finally, the sensation-related barriers subscale was significantly associated with testing positive for Chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 identified subscales yielded adequate reliability and strong evidence of validity, thereby suggesting the utility of these brief measures for use in observational and experimental research with YBMSM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".