Main Article Content
This study used a mixed method sequential explanatory design to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Safer Sex Behavior for Thai Women Scale. The conceptual model and content domains were derived from a comprehensive literature review. Five domains and 70 items of safer sex behaviors for Thai women were generated through in-depth interviews from 20 Thai women. The first draft instrument was verified for content validity by 7 experts and examined for the clarity by 6 Thai women. Out of 70 items, 53 items remained.
The construct validity of the revised scale was tested by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The participants were 298 and 354 Thai women, respectively. The results revealed that scale was composed of 9 factors and accounted for 50.17 % of the variances. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that only 8 factors (42 items) fitted the empirical data, namely: avoiding having sex with a partner who has multiple-partners; negotiating with partners for condom use; avoiding alcohol drinking and drug use; avoiding having sex with a partner who has sexual transmitted infection; protecting when partner has sexual transmitted infections; using condom; avoiding having sexual intercourse; and reducing sexual risk behavior. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the overall scale was 0.89. Thus the instrument has good construct validity and reliability. This instrument has potential to monitor and evaluate a nursing intervention to promote safer sex behavior among Thai women.
Copyright: The Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, Thailand Nursing & Midwifery Council has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce and distribute the manuscript and all contents therein.
2. Asavapiriyanont S, Lolekha R, Roongpisuthipong A, Wiratchai A, Kaoiean S, Suksripanich O. Sexually transmitted infections among HIV-infected women in Thailand. BMC Public Health. 2013; (13):3733-83
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in HIV/AIDS diagnoses. 2013Available from www.unaids. org/sites/default/files./THA_narrative_report_2015.pdf
4. Varghese B, Maher JE, Peterman TA, Branson BM, Steketee RW. Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: Quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice Of partner, sex act, and condom use. Sex Trans Dis. 2012; 29 (1): 38-43.
5. Tripathi S. Adolescent health; situation and strategy. 2011 Available Fromhttps://www.nicfd.cf.mahidol.ac.th/en/ images/documents/Adolescent health. pdf
6. Pungposub N. The selected factors of the health status among working women. J Demograp. 2005; 23(3): 19-25.
7. Skafte I, Silberschmidt M. Female gratification, sexual power and safer sex: female sexuality as an empowering resource among women in Rwanda. Cult Health Sex. 2014;16 (1): 1-13.
8. UNICEF. Situation analysis of young people at high risk of HIV expose in Thailand Synthesis report. 2014 Available from https://www.unicef.org/thailand/UNICEF_study_ on_HIV_infection_among_young_peole_FINAL_ ENGLISH.pdf
9. Moreno R, Nababan HY, Ota E, Wariki WM, Ezoe S, Gilmour S, et al. Structural and community-level interventions for increasing condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 29(7): Art.No.: CD003363. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD003363.pub3.
10. United Nation Program on HIV/AIDS/World Health Organization 2015 Available from https://www. unaids. org/sites/default/ files/media_ asset/ JC2702_ GARPR2015guidelines_en.pdf
11. Dilorio C, Persons M, Lehr S, Adame D, Carlone, J. Measurement of safer sex behavior in adolescents and young adults. Nursing Research. 1992; 41 (4): 203-208.
12. Watronachai N. Safer sex practices of male vocational students in Nakhonpathum Province. Mahidol University. 2005. 200p.
13. Stoop I, Billiet J, Koch A, Fitzgerald R. Improving survey response: Lessons learned from the European social survey. West Sussex. United Kingdom: John Wiley& Sons; 2010, pp. 29-37
14. Greinberg J, Bruce C. Exploring the dimension of human sexuality. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett; 2007, pp. 210.
15. Wilmoth CM, Berry DA. Measuring sexuality: Physiologic, psychologic, and relationship dimensions in instruments for clinical nursing research. In Frank-Stromborg M, Olsen SJ. Instrument for clinical health-care research. London: Jones and Bartlett; 1992, pp 257-278.
16. Deheart DD, Birkimer JC. Trying to practice safer sex: Development of the sexual risks scale. J sex res; 34(1), 11-25.
17. Pheko MM. Self-efficacy, self-esteem and intention to practice safer sex. IJHSS.2013; 9 (2), 87-95.
18. Morrison-Beedy D, Carey MP, Feng C, Tu XM. Predicting sexual risk behaviors among adolescent and young women using a prospective diary method. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31(4): 329–340
19. Callands TA, Sipsma HL, Theresa S. Betancourt TS, Hansena NB. Experiences and acceptance of intimate partner violence: associations with STI symptoms and ability to negotiate sexual safety among young liberian women. Cult Health Sex. 2013; 15(6): 680–694.
20. Tangmunkongvorakul A, Carmichael G, Banwell C, Dwisetyani UI, Sleigh A. Sexual perceptions and practices of young people in northern Thailand. J Youth Stud, 2011; 14:3, 315-339.
21. Pett AM, Lackey RN, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis the use of factor analysis for instrument development health care research. California: Sage; 2003, pp.209.
22. Netemeyer R, Bearden W, Sharma S. Scaling procedures. California: Sage; 2003, pp.65.
23. Polit D, Beck C. Nursing research generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008, pp. 463-503.
24. Miles BM, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1984, pp. 50-88. Available from https://vivauniversity.files. wordpress.com/2013/11/milesandhuberman 1994.pdf
25. Lynn MR (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35 (6), 382-385.
26. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2010, pp.790.
27. Kline RB. Principle and practice of structure equation modeling. New York: The Guilford press; 2016, pp 64-97.
28. Boomsma A, Hoogland JJ. The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In Cudeck R, Toit SD, Sorbrom D (Eds). Structural equation modeling: present and future. USA: Scientific Software International; 2001, pp. 139-168
29. Thongnopakun S, Maharachpong N, Abdullakasim P. Factors related to the sexual behaviors among youth in universities located in the eastern region of Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016 ; 99 (1): 43-50.
30. Htay NN, Maneesriwongul W, Phuphaibul R, Orathai P. A causal model of condom use among people living with HIV/AIDS in Myanmar. Pacific Rim Int J Nurs Res. 2012; 13 (3): 234-248.
31. Chirawatkul S, Srikumsook S, Boonreong P, Srirahut J, Kongkird T. Being a male drug user and female drug user: meaning of drug use. J Psychiatry Assoc Thailand. 2013; 58 (4): 407- 420.
32. Haque MR, Soonthornahada A. Risk perception and condom use among Thai youth; finding from Kanchanaburi demographic surveillances system site in Thailand. J Health Popul Nutr. 2009; 27(6): 772-783.
33. Chen F, Bollen KA, Paxton P, Curran P, Kirby J. Improper solutions in structural equation models: causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociology Method &Research, 2001; 29: 468-508.
34. Flora BD, Labrish C, Chalmers P. Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Front Psycho. 2012; 3(55): 1-10.
35. Gliem AJ, Gliem RR. Calculaing, Interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert type scale.2003 Available from pstudents.com/wp/ wp-content/uploads /2015 /02/Gliem-Gliem.pdf
36. Exavery A, Konate AM, Jackson F, Noronha J, Sikustahihi G, Tani K et al., Role of condom negotiation on condom use women of reproductive age in three districts in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2012; 22: 1097-1108.