Sexual and Gender Minority Family Climate Measure: Measure Design and Validation

Background and Purpose: Current research suggests that, for sexual and gender minority adolescents (SGMA), coming from a homo/transnegative family may be associated with increased risk for mental and behavioral health problems (Ryan et al., 2009). In addition, coming from affirming families may protect against these concerns (Ryan et al., 2010). There is a dearth of information regarding the role of homo/transnegative microaggressions (i.e., subtle snubs and slights) and microaffirmations (i.e., subtle affirmations) on SGMA’s risk profiles. Furthermore, little is known about differences between family microaggressions directly targeting SGMA (interpersonal) and those that occur indirectly (environmental). This lack of information is due in large part to the absence of measures to assess microaggressions and microaffirmations in SGMA’s family systems. To address these gaps, the Sexual and Gender Minority Family Climate (SGMFC) measure was developed with four subscales: interpersonal microaggressive, environmental microaggressive, interpersonal microaffirming, and environmental microaffirming. Utilizing a national sample of SGMA (N=952), this study tests the reliability and validity of these subscales.

Methods: The analysis included 952 SGMA in a cross-sectional, internet-based, quantitative study. Eligibility criteria were: non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender identity, 14-19 y/o, U.S. residence, enrolled in middle/high school, and English literate. Participants in the current sample had disclosed their sexual and/or gender identity to at least one family member. The SGMFC was developed for the current study through extensive review of the literature, expert and youth advisory board consultation, and pilot testing. This development phase resulted in a 29-item measure: environmental microaggressions (seven items), interpersonal microaggressions (nine items), environmental microaffirmations (six items), and interpersonal microaffirmations (seven addressed). Responses were on a Likert scale ranging from Never (0) to All the time (4). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed, testing the goodness-of-fit of the four proposed sub-scales. Analyses were performed on a randomly selected implicate with multiply imputed data, with three additional random implicates used to confirm model fit.

Results: CFA was performed with the theoretically driven 4-factor model. The model indicated good fit in accordance with commonly accepted guidelines (Hu & Bentler, 1999): χ2(371)=3121.76, p<.0001, NFI=.95, CFI=.95, SRMR=.06. All standardized factor loadings were above .45 indicating that all factors accounted for more than 20% of variance in the indicator, with the majority accounting for 50% or more of the variance (standardized factor loading >.71). Analysis with three randomly selected implicates confirmed model fit. The subscales indicated satisfactory internal consistency: environmental microaggressive (α=.90), interpersonal microaggressive (α=.91), environmental microaffirming (α=.89), and interpersonal microaffirming (α=.82).

Conclusions and Implications: CFA supported a four-factor measure mapping onto the four latent constructs of interpersonal microaggressions, environmental microaggressions, interpersonal microaffirmations, and environmental microaffirmations. The design and validation of this measure is a first step in improving social work researchers’ ability to investigate the cumulative and chronic impact of hostile family climates and the potentially enduring effects of positive family climates. As social work practitioners strive to assess and serve SGMA, it is critical that we understand not only blatant experiences of negativity but the subtle stressors and affirmations that may impact their mental and behavioral health.