Chapter 5: Methodology
5.4 Measurement
Two questionnaires which had already been developed and applied in other research were used for the purposes of measurement here. These included: The General Help- Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson, Deane & Ciarrochi, 2005) and The Male Attitudes Norms Inventory II (Luyt, 2005). These questionnaires were then combined and provided to participants to complete for the purposes of this research. (Appendix A:
Questionnaire).
5.4.1 General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (GHSQ)
The GHSQ has been designed to measure the “intentions to seek help from different help sources and for different problems” (Wilson et al., 2005, p.15). An important
41 feature of this questionnaire is its ability to measure both intentional and actual help- seeking behaviour.
The GHSQ makes use of Likert scale-type format, in which participants must rate their likelihood of seeking help from a number of help sources, and for a number of problems. The range of this scale is along a 7-point continuum, with 1 representing
“extremely unlikely” and 7 “extremely likely”. Higher scores therefore indicate a greater intention of help-seeking either generally (the sum of all items), or from specific help sources (individual scales) (Wilson et al., 2005). Furthermore,
participants are required to indicate help sources that they have actually sought help from in the two weeks preceding the administration of the questionnaire.
This measure employs a format which allows it to be readjusted by researchers to accommodate the unique specifications of their research. That is, the types of problems and help sources listed in this measure can be replaced and formulated to reflect problems and help sources unique to that context or specific to the research at hand (Wilson et al., 2005). This ensures that this is an adaptable and sensitive format for measuring both intentional and actual help-seeking behaviour (Wilson et al., 2005).
For the purposes of this study, the format of this questionnaire was kept largely unchanged. Nonetheless, after the administration of the questionnaire in this format, some limitations were noted. Firstly, it was noted that to ask participants to record help sources that they had sought help from in the two weeks preceding the
administration of the questionnaire, was too short a time frame to gauge an accurate reflection. Two weeks is a relatively short period of time, in which the need for help may not have arisen for many participants. This is especially relevant in the case of formal help sources, whose function in many cases is quite specific, and where the need for this kind of help might not have arisen in a two week period for many of the participants. However, this is some what limited by asking participants to rate the likelihood of both their intentional and actual help-seeking behaviour.
42 5.4.2 The Male Attitudes Norms Inventory II (MANI-II)
The MANI-II has been developed as a refinement of the earlier MANI, both of which have been designed to measure masculine ideology in South Africa. The adjustments made from the MANI to MANI-II are said to reflect both theoretical and empirical improvements to this measure (Luyt, 2005). These improvements have come as a result of both qualitative and quantitative investigations into gender ideology and research in South Africa, and the quantitative construction of this measure (Luyt, 2005).
The MANI-II has been designed as “a measure of South African masculine ideology”
(Luyt, 2005, p.212). To achieve this, the measurement comprises of 40 statements to which participants are asked to respond to using a 5-point Likert scale. The range of this scale includes: Strongly agree; Agree; Have no opinion; Disagree and; Strongly disagree. The forty statements listed in this measure are what Luyt (2005, p.212) describes as “belief statements”, which are said to reflect to “dominant notions of masculinity”. In this measure, three dimensions of masculinity are highlighted as typical of traditional conceptualisations of masculinity, including ideas and practices around toughness, control and sexuality (Luyt, 2005).These are embodied in an overall score of masculinity. The questionnaire also allows for scores on the three subscales of Toughness, Control and Sexuality.
The Toughness subscale measures respondents‟ adherence to masculine ideas and practices around the belief that “men should remain emotionally contained, in which active expression preferably finds display in assertive physicality…” (Luyt, 2005, p.221). Factor 2, or the Control subscale, measures adherence to masculine ideas and practices around the importance of control in men‟s lives. According to Luyt (2005, p.221), this involves an emphasis on men‟s “mastery over their lived reality” in all areas of living, including financial, social and self. Finally, the Sexuality scale measures “the importance of (hetero) sexuality and its performance in dominant masculine expression” (Luyt, 2005, p.221). According to Luyt (2005) this includes both an emphasis on male sexual performance and a distancing from other brands of sexuality.
43 Scores on all of these four scales, including the overall total scale and the three
subscales, are calculated by adding responses on the appropriate items together.
According to Luyt (2005, p.212), “a high item score is argued to signal an
individual‟s agreement with traditional conceptualisations of masculinity.” Research conducted by Luyt (2005, p.223) supports the “construct validity and internal
reliability of the MANI-II”. This is shown in a Cronbach‟s alpha score of 0.90, with the subscales scoring 0.81 (Toughness), 0.82 (Control) and 0.85) on the same measure.