Relationship Factors’ Impact on Condom Use Among College Students

Research indicates that a number of college students are at risk for HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and unplanned pregnancy as a result of their sexual behaviors. Specific behaviors placing college students at risk include having sex with multiple partners, poor communication about safer sex practices with their sexual partners and not using condoms consistently and correctly when engaging in sexual activity. The purpose of this paper is to identify potential differences in safer sex practices and factors that influence condom use among college students. A four-page, 18-item survey was developed to determine participants’ condom use and the impact of relationship status and other demographic factors on condom use. Analyses revealed that the number of lifetime vaginal sexual partners and participants’ sex influenced condom use. There were no significant differences in relationship status, duration, trust, honesty and condom use. These findings should be considered with designing interventions to increase condom use among college students.     

Detecting random responders with infrequency scales using an error-balancing threshold

Infrequency scales are becoming a popular mode of data screening, due to their availability and ease of implementation. Recent research has indicated that the interpretation and functioning of infrequency items may not be as straightforward as had previously been thought (Curran & Hauser, 2015), yet there are no empirically based guidelines for implementing cutoffs using these items. In the present study, we compared two methods of detecting random responding with infrequency items: a zero-tolerance threshold versus a threshold that balances classification error rates. The results showed that a traditional zero-tolerance approach, on average, screens data that are less indicative of careless responding than those screened by the error-balancing approach. Thus, the de facto standard of applying a “zero-tolerance” approach when screening participants with infrequency scales may be too stringent, so that meaningful responses may also be removed from analyses. Recommendations and future directions are discussed.