Cited by 222Gender Roles and Identity StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingGender and Feminist Studies

Male Role Norms Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across gender.

Open access
Levant, Ronald F., Hall, Rosalie J., Rankin, Thomas J.·2013·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

The current study reports the development from the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R; Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010) of the 21-item MRNI-Short Form (MRNI-SF). Confirmatory factor analysis of MRNI-SF responses from a sample of 1,017 undergraduate participants (549 men, 468 women) indicated that the best fitting "bifactor" model incorporated the hypothesized 7-factor structure while explicitly modeling an additional, general traditional masculinity ideology factor. Specifically, each item-level indicator loaded on 2 factors: a general traditional masculinity ideology factor and a specific factor corresponding to 1 of the 7 hypothesized traditional masculinity ideology norms. The bifactor model was assessed for measurement invariance across gender groups, with findings of full configural invariance and partial metric invariance, such that factor loadings were equivalent across the gender groups for the 7 specific factors but not for the general traditional masculinity ideology factor. Theoretical explanations for this latter result include the potential that men's sense of self or identity may be engaged when responding to questions asking to what extent they agree or disagree with normative statements about their behavior, a possibility that could be investigated in future research by examining the associations of the general and specific factors with measures of masculine identity. Additional exploratory invariance analyses demonstrated latent mean differences between men and women on 4 of the 8 factors, and equivocal results for invariance of item intercepts, item uniquenesses, and factor variances-covariances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031545

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., & Rankin, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Akron (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2013-04
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
228-238
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W2056479147
Cited by
222
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
21.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
traditional masculinity ideology, masculine norms, gender differences, measurement invariance, bifactor model, scale development, male identity, gender role attitudes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Social Identification, Social Values, Students, Midwestern United States, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review