This paper describes the psychometric properties of the Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS), which measures contemporary negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (i.e., attitudes not based on traditional or moral objections to homosexuality). In Study 1 (N = 353), a preliminary version of the MHS was developed, and its psychometric properties were examined. Participants in Studies 2 and 3 (Ns = 308 and 233, respectively) completed the MHS and other attitudinal measures. The relationships among these variables were investigated to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the scale's construct validity. In Study 4 (N = 36), a behavioural expression of modern homonegativity was examined using the attributional ambiguity paradigm. The results of these studies indicate that the MHS is unidimensional, possesses a high degree of internal consistency, and is factorially distinct from a measure of old-fashioned homonegativity. As hypothesized, scores on the MHS correlated positively with political conservatism, religious behaviour, religious self-schema and modern sexism, but did not correlate significantly with social desirability bias. In addition, the MHS appears to be less susceptible to floor effects than a commonly used measure of old-fashioned homonegativity. Finally, the experimental study revealed that participants obtaining high scores on the MHS were less likely to sit beside individuals wearing T-shirts with pro-gay or pro-lesbian slogans when they could justify their seating choice on nonprejudicial grounds.

Aims/hypothesis We wanted to identify a five-item short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and a single-item measure for rapid screening of diabetes-related emotional distress. Methods Using an existing database of 1,153 patients with diabetes, we conducted a principal-components analysis to identify a set of five items and then conducted a reliability analysis and validity checks. From those five items, we identified the item with the strongest psychometric properties as a one-item screening tool. Results We identified a reliable and valid short version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) comprising five of the emotional-distress questions of the full PAID items (PAID-5, with items 3, 6, 12, 16, 19). The PAID-5 has satisfactory sensitivity (94%) and specificity (89%) for recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. We also identified a one-item screening tool, the PAID-1 (Question 12: Worrying about the future and the possibility of serious complications), which has concurrent sensitivity and specificity of about 80% for the recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. Conclusions/interpretation The PAID-5 and PAID-1 appear to be psychometrically robust short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

No abstract