ArticlePloS one2025
Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA growing body of research indicates that sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) influence health through a variety of distinct mechanisms. Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) techniques could examine these influences, however, there is a lack of nuanced and easily implementable measurement tools for health research. To address this gap, we created the Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Tool - 5 item (SGBA-5).
objectivesThis research aims to assess the validity and reliability of the SGBA-5 for use in health sciences research where sex or gender are not primary variables of interest.
methodsA Delphi consensus study was conducted with Canadian researchers (n = 14). The Delphi experts rated the validity of each SGBA-5 item on a 5-point Likert scale each round, receiving summary statistics of other experts' responses after the first round. A conservative threshold for consensus agreement (75% rating an item 4+ of 5) was used given the novelty of this scale's items. Reliability was assessed through a two-armed test-retest study. The university student arm (n = 89) was conducted in-person (on paper), and the older adult arm (n = 71) was conducted online (digitally).
resultsThe Delphi study ended after three rounds; experts reached consensus agreement on the validity of the biological sex item of the SGBA-5 (93%) and consensus non-agreement on each of the gendered aspect of health items (identity: 64%, expression: 64%, roles: 50%, relations: 57%). Both the student arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) and the older adult arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) of the test-retest study indicated that all items were reliable.
conclusionsThe novel SGBA-5 tool demonstrated reliability across all scale items and validity of the biological sex item. The gendered aspects of health items may be valid. Future research can further develop the SGBA-5 as a tool for use in health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.