Validity and reliability of the Neilands sexual stigma scale among Kenyan gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the validity and reliability of the Neilands sexual stigma scale administered to 871 gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) at two research locations in Kenya. METHODS: Using cross-validation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on a randomly selected subset of participants and validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining participants. Associations of the initial and final stigma scale factors with depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and other substance use were examined for the entire dataset. RESULTS: EFA produced a two-factor scale of perceived and enacted stigma. The CFA model fit to the two-factor scale was improved after removing three cross-loaded items and adding correlated errors (chi-squared = 26.5, df 17, p = 0.07). Perceived stigma was associated with depressive symptoms (beta = 0.34, 95% CI 0.24, 0.45), alcohol use (beta = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.25) and other substance use (beta = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07, 0.31), while enacted stigma was associated with alcohol use (beta = 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest enacted and perceived sexual stigma are distinct yet closely related constructs among GBMSM in Kenya and are associated with poor mental health and substance use.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".