ArticlePLOS global public health2025
How does a recent gender norms scale perform? Exploratory factor analyses among adolescents in Ethiopia and Bangladesh.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inequitable gender norms shape adolescents' perceptions and behaviours, increasing the risk for adverse health outcomes as adults. However, there is a lack of reliable scales to measure these norms. The Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) project proposes a scale for adolescents aged 10-19 years considered vulnerable, (i) distinguishing between individual-level gender attitudes and community-level gender norms (2 factors), and (ii) categorising items into five domains (e.g., education; 5 factors). As part of validating this scale, we analyse the two- and five-factor structure using GAGE datasets from Ethiopia and Bangladesh. We performed Explorative Factor Analyses (EFA) using Principal Axis Factoring and oblique rotation. We tested sampling adequacy using Bartlett's test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure. In the EFA, we tested the two-factor structure and refined the initial five-factor structure by removing variables that failed to load onto a factor or exhibited cross-loadings. Next, we removed variables with low communalities (<0.2) and low factor loadings (<0.3). The EFAs comprised 6,183 observations from the Ethiopia and 2,245 observations from the Bangladesh dataset. The initial five-factor solution seemed more appropriate than the two-factor (individual-community) distinction in both datasets, and only the refined five-factor structure provided a solution in which the items corresponded to the five domains. However, this only applies to 17 and 15 of the original 30 items in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, respectively, and two of the factors only include two variables each. The five-domain structure proved more suitable for the Ethiopia and Bangladesh contexts than the individual-community distinction, but only for a reduced set of items. We thus propose an adaptation for the GAGE gender norms scale in Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Conceptual challenges, such as questionable domain assignments, highlight the need to further refine the scale and to confirm the results by Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
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.