This idea are examined of the about three items playing with a great 7-area Likert-type level calculating the latest the total amount to which the participants believed it have been able to playing with an effective condom. 1) “How probably will it be to work with good condom?” (from one- Unlikely at all so you’re able to eight- Totally possible); 2) “Just how difficult can it be to use a condom?” (from 1- Easy at all in order to 7- Very hard); and you can step 3) “I’m ready using a good condom” eros escort New Haven (from one- Not capable anyway so you’re able to seven- Most able to). Interior structure was not estimated for it scale as it incorporated just three circumstances comparing factors not related with each other.

Behavioral intention

Examples of goods are: “I can find condoms if i you desire him or her,” “I can fool around with a good condom if i have sex involving entrance,” (this person goods was used to your mediation analyses) and “I will give one another that people will be use a beneficial condom just before entrance” (in the present studies; ? = .73). The alternative, getting into unhealthy intimate practices, has also been assessed: “I can have sex after consuming way too much liquor,” and you can “I can have sex immediately after providing other medications (age.grams., marihuana or acidic)” (in the modern data; ? = .73). Brand new effect measure is Likert-type of with five affairs: 1 = Not really, 2 = Perhaps not, 3 = Possibly, 4 = I most probably will, and 5 = I will. Individual items were used in the present day research.

Condom explore

We assessed the fresh percentage of condom explore (“Excite county the new percentage of times when you utilize which defense approach on your own sexual matchmaking”), which have a scale out-of 0 to a hundred%. Based on regularity regarding condom use, i calculated the fresh new varying regarding consistent use of condom (step one = consistent use: 100% of the time; 0 = contradictory play with: lower than one hundred%). Anyone product was utilized in the present study.

Concurrently, in order to study the brand new sexual exposure to the players, different aspects of the adolescents’ relationships problem and sexual behavior and you will intimate direction was analyzed: 1) spouse (“Could you currently have someone?”) answers: sure if any; 2) age of sexual partner (years); 3) Intimate feel (“Maybe you’ve got intimate communications (dental, rectal, otherwise vaginal sex, otherwise common masturbation?”; answers: sure or no; 4) amount of sexual people (“That have how many individuals have you had sexual activity along with penetration throughout your life?”); 5) which have took part in all after the four strategies examined privately: genital stimulation, mutual genital stimulation, dental sex, genital penetration, and you can anal penetration, solutions yes if any; 6) decades if sexual habit was first attempted (in case this has been tried) in years; 7) volume away from intimate relationship, having responses ranging from I’ve not got gender to every big date or just about every big date; 8) the means to access condom inside the very first gender (You will find perhaps not got intercourse, Zero, Sure, otherwise I do not consider); and you can 9) intimate direction (Kinsey’s size); and you can ten) safeguards tips (Can you use the following the safety strategies on the penetrative sex? In this case, please indicate how often you employ this process of safeguards on your own sexual matchmaking; options: condom, pills, no means, or any other tips).

Analytical analyses

All the analyses was basically carried out using SPSS v25 statistical app. The analysis hypotheses were examined utilising the chi-rectangular statistic toward data out-of categorical details and Student’s t to have quantitative parameters. Sex differences in sociodemographic activities, condom play with precursors, and sexual behavior have been assessed. Size of effect is actually computed playing with possibility ratio (OR) (to have categorical variables) and you may Cohen’s d (to possess quantitative details). Cohen’s d values ? .20 had been felt tiny, opinions anywhere between .21 and .forty-two we noticed short, values ranging from .50 and you may .79 have been considered medium, and you will values ? .80 was experienced higher . Accuracy of your scales try computed using Cronbach alpha. The significance level is lay in the ? = .05 (95% count on interval).