Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q)

287 In the last decade, the virtual world has become another area in people’s lives, especially for the younger population. Yet, despite the benefi ts frequently associated with modern technology, it also facilitates risky usage. In this context, sexting has become another method through which adolescents can express and explore their sexuality; however, on occasions, its improper use, non-consensual sharing, and potential co-involvement with other risky behaviours can pose a risk. Its relationship with cyberbullying stands out particularly. The results indicate that having been cyberbullied increases the probability of participating in sending (Medrano et al., 2018) and receiving sexting (Frankel et al., 2018). Sending is also related to the subsequent victimization of cyberbullying (Van Ouytsel, Lu et al., 2019). Despite these risks, the analysis of sexting still varies considerably depending on the baseline study used, mainly because of the defi nition adopted and how sexting is measured (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). The main reported differences between sexting defi nitions and, consequently, instruments to measure them are due to the type of behaviour in question. Specifi cally, this can be broken down into active sexting (sending or forwarding) and passive sexting (directly receiving content from the creator or receiving content forwarded by other people) (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). From this perspective, it is important to know the source of the shared content, that is, whether it is self-produced or from third parties (Lee et al., 2016). In some studies, the defi nition is restricted to content which originates from individuals directly involved (Ricketts et al., 2015), whereas other studies also include third-party content (Lippman & Campbell, 2014) or do not explicitly mention this criterion. This aspect is also closely linked to the need to include whether consent was given in this exchange. Furthermore, differences in content type (images, videos or text messages) and sexual characteristics ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG Copyright © 2021 Psicothema www.psicothema.com Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) Rosario del Rey1, Mónica Ojeda1, and José A. Casas2 1 Universidad de Sevilla and 2 Universidad de Córdoba Abstract Resumen Background: Sexting has garnered interest from the public and the scientifi c community given its ever-increasing presence in adolescents’ lives. However, analysis varies depending on the baseline study used. This calls for a standardised sexting instrument that addresses scientifi c evidence-based recommendations. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate the structure of a questionnaire that includes the various sexting behaviours and motives. Method: The sample comprised 1,362 students (51.1% female; 12-18 years old). Participants were randomly split into two halves, controlling for the gender variable (n=681), and exploratory and confi rmatory factor analyses were performed. Results: Validity of the Sexting Behaviours and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) was confi rmed, along with the suitability of the factor structure, internal consistency, and divergent validity. This was also reported by gender. Six dimensions were identifi ed: sending, reasons for sending, receiving, forwarding, victim of forwarding, and reasons for forwarding. Conclusions: The SBM-Q presents good psychometric properties, providing a detailed and consolidated overview of the behaviours that adolescents might engage in when sexting as well as the context in which it occurs. Keywords: Sexting, adolescence, assesment, sexual behavior, Online, motives. Validación del Cuestionario de Comportamientos y Motivos de Sexting (SBM-Q). Antecedentes: el sexting ha recibido cada vez mayor atención pública y científi ca, dada su creciente presencia en la vida de los adolescentes. Sin embargo, su análisis varía en función del estudio de referencia. Esto requiere un instrumento de sexting estandarizado que aborde las recomendaciones de la evidencia científi ca. Este estudio tiene como principal objetivo desarrollar y validar la estructura de un cuestionario que incluya los diversos comportamientos y motivos de sexting. Método: la muestra estuvo constituida por 1.362 estudiantes (51,1% chicas; 12-18 años). Se dividió aleatoriamente en dos mitades, controlando la variable género (n=681), y se realizaron análisis factoriales exploratorio y confi rmatorio. Resultados: se confi rmó la validez del Sexting Behaviours and Motives Q u e s t i on n a i r e ( S BM- Q ) , l a a d e c u a c i ó n d e s u e s t r u c t u r a f a c t o r i a l, c o n s i s t e n c i a interna y validez divergente. También según el género. Concretamente, se identifi caron seis dimensiones: envío, motivos de envío, recepción, reenvío, víctima de reenvío y motivos de reenvío. Conclusiones: el SBM-Q presenta buenas propiedades psicométricas y permite obtener una visión detallada y consolidada de los comportamientos que los adolescentes pueden adoptar cuando realizan sexting, así como del contexto en el que sucede. Palabras clave: sexting, adolescencia, evaluación, comportamiento sexual, online, motivos. Psicothema 2021, Vol. 33, No. 2, 287-295 doi: 10.7334/psicothema2020.207 Received: June 9, 2020 • Accepted: December 28, 2020 Corresponding author: Rosario del Rey Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación Universidad de Sevilla 41920 San Juan de Aznalfarache (Spain) e-mail: [email protected] Rosario del Rey, Mónica Ojeda, and José A. Casas 288 (suggestive or explicit) are observed (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). In this context, narrower defi nitions which limit sexting to the sending of explicit sexual images (Choi et al., 2016) can be found, as well as broader defi nitions which describe sexting as the sending, receiving or forwarding of sexually explicit or suggestive images, videos or text messages via electronic means (Villacampa, 2017). This diversity, alongside other reasons such as the measuring tool and participant age, have led to high variability in sexting prevalence among adolescents. However, a recent meta-analysis places the average prevalence of sending sexual content at 14.8%; receiving at 27.4%; non-consensual forwarding at 12%; and receiving forwarded content at 8.4%. What is more, it is found to increase with age (Madigan et al., 2018). It also varies depending on the relationship between those involved, proving more common among sexual and/or romantic desired or actual partners (Beckmeyer et al., 2019). Regarding gender, diverse results have been reported in terms of sending sexting, but it seems that boys perform more behaviours related to receiving and forwarding (Ojeda et al., 2020; Strassberg et al., 2017). There are several ways to study adolescent sexting, yet most research employs direct questions (e.g., Casas et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2016) and, to a lesser extent, validated scales about sexting (Fajardo et al., 2013; Penado et al., 2019; Vizzuetth-Herrera et al., 2015). Specifi cally, the fi rst of the scales (Fajardo et al., 2013) is based on an adaptation of the questionnaire Sex and Tech (Marrufo, 2012; The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008) and addresses adolescents’ views on the use of mobile phones and the Internet for sending and receiving sexting. As limitations, this questionnaire was used with a small sample (132 adolescents) and measures opinions and concerns to a degree of agreement, so it does not facilitate frequency according to behaviours or consider the reasons for active sexting. The second one (Penado et al., 2019) measures the prevalence of sexual image/ video sharing behaviours. This questionnaire was validated with a sample of 602 adolescents, but it does not consider sexual text messages (only images/videos), ex-partners in the recipients/ senders or reasons for active sexting. And the third one (Vizzuetth- Herrera et al., 2015) analyses online sexual behaviours within formal relationships, including sexting and sending reasons. As limitations, this questionnaire was validated with a small sample (263 social network users, not exclusively adolescents, but from 16 to 50 years old) and does not differentiate between the type of sexual content, does not include forwarding behaviour, nor does it consider other types of relationships outside of the formal couple. Thus, the need remains for a standardised sexting instrument that addresses scientifi c evidence-based recommendations (Van Ouytsel et al., 2020) and sexting motives should be included to help understand the nature of the phenomenon and the context in which it occurs, particularly if it is non-consensual (Kopecký, 2015; Symons et al., 2018). Notable reasons for sending are identifi ed as: fl irting; because most people do it; as a joke; to attract attention; because it was part of the dating relationship; owing to pressure or blackmail; and because it’s sexy (Houck et al., 2014; Kopecký, 2015; Villacampa, 2017). Similarly, the main reasons for nonconsensual forwarding include: an ended relationship and feeling upset; wanting to hurt the other person; out of jealousy; to impress others; as a joke; because most people do it; owing to pressure; and to attract attention (Kopecký, 2015; Villacampa, 2017). Therefore, a validated instrument is needed to provide detailed information for baseline and impact assessment of psychoeducational programmes addressing this phenomenon (Patchin & Hinduja, 2019). To this end, the theoretical model provided by the literature indicates the need to include the different forms of sexting (sending, receiving, and forwarding), the possible victimization of forwarding without consent, and the reasons for active sexting (sending and forwarding), considering the type of sexual content and the relationship between those involved. Despite the scientifi c community’s ongoing efforts to learn about this multi-faceted phenomenon, our literature review did not bring up a validated adolescent sexting instrument that incorporates the different recommendations for measuring the construct and for gaining a detailed understanding of it. As such, our study seeks to bridge this research gap and proposes: to develop and validate the structure of a questionnaire for adolescents that encompasses the various sexting behaviours and motives; to analyse the differences between this instrument and the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ) in order to test the divergent validity and given the outstanding relationship between cyberbullying and sexting and the international validation of the ECIPQ; and to explore the gender-related differences in the instrument’s structure. Method Participants The sample comprised 1,362 students (51.1% female) aged between 12 and 18 years (M=14.28; SD=1.50). The participants were secondary and post-16 students from six schools located in west Andalusia (Spain). They were also active users of instant messaging apps and social networking sites such as WhatsApp 96.6%, Instagram 87.4%, TikTok 35.8%, Snapchat 38.1%, Facebook 22.2%, and Twitter 20%. Convenience sampling was used among invited schools which agreed to participate in the study. Instruments The Sexting Behaviours and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) was created ad hoc for this research and is intended for the adolescent population. It comprises 39 items measured by a category scale with fi ve response options measuring behaviour frequency: 0 = never; 1 = less than once a month; 2 = monthly; 3 = weekly; and 4 = daily. The items refer to a time frame spanning the last twelve months (see Table 1). Following the previously reviewed literature that highlighted the differentiation of the different behaviours, the forwarding victimization, and the motives for active sexting, six factors were designed. The fi rst factor comprises six items that address sending behaviours, differentiating between the type of sexual content and the relationship of those involved. The second factor comprises nine items about reasons for sending. The third factor includes fi ve items about being a victim of non-consensual forwarded content, considering the type of relationship the victim and perpetrator(s) hold. The fourth factor comprises six items and covers receiving sexual content, distinguishing between the type of sexual content and the relationship of those involved. The fi fth factor comprises four items that address active forwarding (when you are the one doing the action) and passive forwarding (when you receive this forwarded sexual content about someone else). The sixth and fi nal factor covers the reasons behind active forwarding. Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) 289 In order to assess divergent validity, the Spanish version of the ECIPQ was used to measure cyberbullying (Del Rey et al., 2015). This questionnaire includes 22 Likert-type items with fi ve response options, ranging from 0 = never to 4 = always. Its dimensions are: cybervictimization and cyberaggression, demonstrating good reliability indexes (αtotal = .87, αvictimization = .80, αaggression = .88). The items across both dimensions refer to actions such as using rude words, excluding or spreading rumours. They are all conducted online and within a time frame spanning the last two months. On all factors in both questionnaires, a high score indicates a higher frequency of what it measures. Procedure This study was approved by the Andalusia Biomedical Research Ethics Coordinating Committee (0568-N-14). Following the methodological recommendations of AERA et al. (2014) and Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero (2019), a review of the scientifi c literature was conducted and the general framework, summarized in the introduction, was outlined. The purpose of the scale was also defi ned, which consists of a detailed screening of participation in sexting among adolescents and the reasons for active participation (sending and forwarding). Next, the defi nition Table 1 Sexting Behaviours and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q)1 How often has the following happened to you on the internet and social networking sites in the last 12 months? I’VE SENT… 01. …suggestive or sexual text messages about myself to my partner/ex-partner 02. …suggestive or sexual videos or images of myself to my partner/ex-partner 03. …suggestive or sexual text messages about myself to somebody I fancied 04. …suggestive or sexual videos or images of myself to somebody I fancied 05. …suggestive or sexual text messages about myself to a friend 06. …suggestive or sexual videos or images of myself to a friend If I’ve sent something, the reason was: 07. To fl irt with someone 08. Because most people do it 09. As a joke/to entertain myself 10. Because it’s normal in dating relationships 11. Because I was threatened/blackmailed 12. Because I felt pressured by my partner or someone I fancied 13. Because I felt pressured by my friends 14. Because I thought it was a good idea or I looked attractive 15. Because I did it accidentally If I’ve sent something, it has been forwarded or shared without my consent by: 16. My girlfriend/ex-girlfriend or a girl I fancied 17. My boyfriend/ex-boyfriend or a boy I fancied 18. A male friend 19. A female friend 20. Others I’VE RECEIVED… 21. …suggestive or sexual text messages about and from my partner/ex-partner 22. …suggestive or sexual videos or images about and from my partner/ex-partner 23. …suggestive or sexual text messages about and from somebody I fancied 24. …suggestive or sexual videos or images about and from somebody I fancied 25. …suggestive or sexual text messages about and from a friend 26. …suggestive or sexual videos or images about and from a friend When received, I’VE FORWARDED OR SHARED… 27. …suggestive or sexual text messages of other people 28. …suggestive or sexual videos or images of other people If I’ve forwarded something, the reason was: 29. Because our relationship had ended 30. To upset the person that appeared 31. Out of jealousy 32. To impress others 33. As a joke/to entertain myself 34. Because most people do it 35. Because my friends pressured me to do it 36. Because I had the consent of the person who appeared 37. Because I did it accidentally I’VE BEEN FORWARDED… 38. …private suggestive or sexual text messages that other people had sent 39. …private suggestive or sexual videos or images that other people had sent 1 Spanish version: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.fi gshare.13625645 Rosario del Rey, Mónica Ojeda, and José A. Casas 290 of sexting was specifi ed, understood as the sending, receiving or forwarding of sexually explicit or suggestive messages, images or videos through a technological device, analysing each sexting behaviour individually in order to evaluate the phenomenon in a comprehensive and precise manner. In response to the demand for the literature reviewed, the specifi cations of the scale, such as the time frame and format of items and responses, were also defi ned. About the time frame, some studies adopt broader criteria, i.e., in the last few months, whereas others are more specifi c, i.e., in the last six months. However, most studies agree that the time frame should be the last 12 months (e.g., Choi et al., 2016; Livingstone & Görzig, 2014). Regarding the format, it is recommended that the response options elicit feedback on how often these behaviours are exhibited (e.g., Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017; Villacampa, 2017). Thus, the time frame for the last 12 months and the format of items and responses written in fi rst person measured by a category scale with fi ve response options measuring behaviour frequency were established. A fi rst version of the questionnaire with 33 items was edited, considering the different sexting behaviours and the type of relationship those involved had. This version was given for evaluation to 6 adolescents and 10 experts in the fi eld of education and psychology. As a consequence, a second version was made with 39 items differentiating, moreover, according to the type of sexual content (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). The questionnaire was again given to these same people and two more versions were made, changing wording and readability, until the fi nal version was reached. Finally, the application and evaluation of the results were carried out. Once the terms of collaboration and participation by the schools’ management teams had been agreed, the paper questionnaires were administered during school hours by staff trained for the purpose of this research. The students’ instructions outlined the following: participation was voluntary; the questionnaire should be completed individually and in the allotted time period; and confi dentiality and anonymity of data would be maintained throughout the study. Data analyses To provide cross-validity evidence, the sample was randomly split into two halves, controlling for the gender variable (n = 681 in each sample). To examine the item metrics and the scale’s dimensionality, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using the Hull method and the Scree Test Value Index was used to evaluate the optimal number of dimensions (Calderón et al., 2019; Lorenzo-Seva et al., 2011). The indicators Unidimensional Congruence (Unico), Explained Common Variance (ECV) and Mean of Item Residual Absolute Loadings (MIREAL) of closeness to unidimensionality assessment were also used (Ferrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2018). Direct oblimin rotation (satisfactory when between-factor correlation is assumed or known) was also used (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Suitability of the matrix for conducting the EFA was tested using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Item response theory was applied to calculate item discrimination; specifi cally, the multidimensional discrimination index proposed by Reckase (2009) was used. Confi rmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the second half of the sample to analyse cross-validation, seeking to validate the factorial structure obtained for the fi rst half. The models were estimated using the Robust Least Squares method, adjusted for the ordinal nature and non-normal distribution of the studied variables (Flora & Curran, 2004). The fi t of the models was tested using the following indexes: the Satorra-Bentler scaled chisquare (χ2 S−B) (Satorra & Bentler, 2001); the comparative fi t index (CFI) and the non-normality fi t index (NNFI) (≥ 0.90 is adequate, ≥ 0.95 is optimal); the root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root means square residual (SRMR) (≤ 0.08 is adequate, ≤ 0.05 is optimal) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Following the criteria proposed by Hair et al. (1998), a Spearman’s correlation for the total sample and the dimensions was run to evaluate the divergent validity of the SBM-Q and the ECIPQ. To assess potential gender-related differences, the degree of robustness of the factorial structure or invariance of the SBM-Q was tested through multi-group analysis, with gender as the analysis criterion. This analysis consists of comparing sets of increasingly restrictive models (models A and B). In Model A, confi gural invariance is tested by imposing the same factorial structure on both subsamples and checking whether the fi t indexes of the combined model indicate good model fi t. Subsequently, in Model B the factorial loads are restricted, and the fi t indexes of Models A and B are compared. Changes (Δ) in NNFI, CFI, RMSEA and SRMR of > 0.01 between the models indicate that the condition of measurement invariance is not met (Dimitrov, 2010), which would signal gender differences. As a further test of invariance, the chi-square difference test (Δχ2S–B) was used, where signifi cant differences demonstrate variance between both the SBM-Q and the ECIPQ (Bryant & Satorra, 2012) and indicate gender differences. The Factor program 10.10.03 edition (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006) and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 26 (IBM, Amrok, NY) were employed for the use and treatment of data. Results The SBM-Q maintained the initial 6-component factorial design, covering different sexting defi nition and consideration items (see Table 1). The fi rst factor (sending) has a reliability of α = 83. The second factor (reasons for sending) has a reliability of α = .89. The third factor (victim of forwarding) has a reliability of α = .75. The fourth factor (receiving) has a reliability of α = .84. The fi fth factor (forwarding) has a reliability of α = .84. The sixth factor (reasons for forwarding) has reliability of α = .83. The total instrument has a reliability of α = .82. The EFA results revealed a Mardia’s coeffi cient (1970) multivariate kurtosis of 5638.90. The Barlett statistic was χ2=14592.1 (df = 741; p<.001) and the KMO’s was .866. Suitability of the factor solution was found for six factors, which explain 62.4% of the cumulative variance (F1 = 27.7%; F2 = 18.8%; F3 = 4.7%; F4 = 4.2%; F5 = 3.5%; F6 = 3.5%). Scree Test Value showed a value of 6.02, indicating 6 dimensions as the best multidimensional solution. The UniCo = .83; ECV = .67; and MIREAL = .21 indices indicate optimal levels for not being considered unidimensional. The fi t indexes resulting from the Hull method showed optimal values for CFI = .98; GFI = .98. The communality and factor loadings (see Table 2), as well as the multidimensional discrimination index (Reckase, 2009) whose values exceed .20, indicate true item discrimination. Inter-item correlation is adequate, with values ranging from .14 to .43. Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) 291 The alpha reliability indices if any element is removed do not show the reliability of the scale improves if any item is removed. Based on the results from the EFA, a CFA was then conducted on the second half of the sample. Mardia’s coeffi cient yielded a value of 4895.10. The results also revealed an adequate polychoric correlation matrix (Elosua & Zumbo, 2008) among the latent factors with a signifi cance level of p < .01 across all between-variable relationships that make up the SBM-Q (see Table 3). The consulted fi t indexes yielded an optimal multidimensional factor solution (CFA χ² S-B = 841.39; p<.001; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .07; CFI = .99; NNFI = .99). The scale’s standardized coeffi cients are shown in Figure 1, highlighting adequate coeffi cients across all items. To calculate divergent validity, correlations between the SBM-Q and ECIPQ factors were compared. The results showed correlations that converge signifi cantly with the dimensions, without any correlation being especially high (see Table 4). Lastly, the results from the multi-group analyses revealed signifi cant differences between genders in the confi guration and measurement invariance tests. The chi-square differences (Δχ2S-B) were signifi cant, and the deltas (Δ) of the CFI, NNFI, RMSEA and SRMR indexes were above the .01 cut-off score for all comparisons (see Table 5). Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Communality MDISC Crombach’s Alpha if the element is removed 1 .62 .47 .88 .81 2 .47 .38 .71 .81 3 .64 .45 .88 .80 4 .51 .35 .69 .81 5 .59 .58 1.07 .81 6 .66 .61 1.20 .81 7 .48 .39 .68 .81 8 .51 .47 .97 .81 9 .57 .43 .83 .81 10 .50 .44 .80 .80 11 .86 .76 1.79 .81 12 .72 .58 1.19 .81 13 .71 .59 1.13 .81 14 .33 .41 .61 .81 15 .61 .55 1.03 .81 16 .45 .44 .69 .81 17 .60 .56 1.05 .81 18 .82 .78 1.81 .79 19 .83 .71 1.58 .79 20 .64 .59 1.05 .81 21 .67 .64 1.21 .81 22 .63 .67 1.25 .81 23 .65 .57 1.04 .81 24 .65 .52 .97 .81 25 .69 .62 1.16 .81 26 .68 .65 1.25 .81 27 .50 .43 .76 .81 28 45 .44 .76 .81 29 .45 .43 .72 .81 30 .36 .38 .61 .81 31 .42 .33 .61 .81 32 .52 .59 1 .81 33 .57 .55 .92 .81 34 .41 .44 .88 .81 35 .37 .34 .58 .81 36 .53 .46 .83 .81 37 .72 .60 1.21 .81 38 .62 .48 .94 .80 39 .58 .48 .92 .81 F1=Sending; F2=Reasons for sending; F3=Victim of forwarding; F4=Receiving; F5=Forwarding; F6=Reasons for forwarding 1 Factorial weights below .30 have been eliminated Rosario del Rey, Mónica Ojeda, and José A. Casas 292 Discussion The main aim of this study was to develop and validate the structure of a questionnaire that encompasses the different sexting behaviours and motives for participating in this phenomenon. The results show validity of the Sexting Behaviours and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q), suitability of its factor structure and its internal consistency, supported by the reviewed scientifi c literature. Specifi cally, following the theoretical base model, the SBM-Q comprises six intercorrelated dimensions, confi rming the hypothesized structure. The most important factor behind the sexting construct is sending, followed by reasons for sending, victim of forwarding, receiving, forwarding, and reasons for forwarding. This questionnaire represents an important contribution Table 3 Polychoric correlation matrix between the SBM-Q latent variables F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F1 – F2 .83* – F3 .80* .85* – F4 .92* .69* .64* – F5 .90* .74* .80* .85* – F6 .77* .81* .90* .64* .86* – * p < .01 F1=Sending; F2=Reasons for sending; F3=Victim of forwarding; F4=Receiving; F5=Forwarding; F6=Reasons for forwarding Figure 1. Confi rmatory factor analysis Table 4 Spearman’s bivariate correlations between the SBM-Q and the ECIPQ CBaggression CBvictimization CBaggression – CBvictimization .590** – F1 .326** .339** F2 .277** .243** F3 .223** .190** F4 .341** .355** F5 .304** .316** F6 .244** .185** * * p < .01 F1=Sending; F2=Reasons for sending; F3=Victim of forwarding; F4=Receiving; F5=Forwarding; F6=Reasons for forwarding Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) 293 to this fi eld of study, given that it responds to the current needs of sexting analysis. Availing of reliable and validated instruments that guarantee a standardized measure of the phenomenon and its context is essential for taking the next steps forward (Van Ouytsel et al., 2020). When it comes to instrument validity, it is necessary to specify how, and for what purpose, can the results that the instrument provides about the construct in question be used. This instrument allows us to estimate sexting frequency among adolescents, differentiating between behaviours, the type of sexual content and the relationship between involved parties. It also provides insight into the reasons why young people send and forward sexual material, thus responding to the needs of scientifi c evidence (Kopecký, 2015; Symons et al., 2018). The questionnaire’s validation reinforces the line of research which argues that sexting includes behaviours associated with sending, receiving, forwarding and receiving forwarded content (Madigan et al., 2018; Villacampa, 2017). This represents progress, given that most research studies allude to sending and/or receiving in their sexting defi nitions (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), and nonconsensual forwarding of other people’s sexual content plays a key role in understanding this phenomenon (Livingstone & Görzig, 2014; Strassberg et al., 2017). Furthermore, the SBM-Q allows us to study the type of content (text messages, and images and videos) independently, given that the impact of a text message may differ from that of an image or video (Houck et al., 2014). Thus, it is possible to analyse whether sexting is a gradual practice, starting with text messages before moving on to images and videos, as other authors have indicated (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). Because sexting involvement also varies depending on the relationship between its protagonists (Beckmeyer et al., 2019), the SBM-Q also analyses sexting behaviours in light of this variable. It considers whether the protagonists are current or ex-partners, whether they fancy each other, or if they are friends. For the victim of non-consensual forwarding dimension, it is possible to determine whether the perpetrator is, in fact, male or female. In general terms, the male population seems to forward more nonconsensual sexual content (Norman, 2017; Ojeda et al., 2019) and, specifi cally, the most frequently shared non-consensual sexual material is of women and girls (Powell & Henry, 2014). The reasons for sending and forwarding have proven equally relevant in the study of sexting (Kopecký, 2015; Symons et al., 2018) and the SBM-Q also allows us to analyse them; the questionnaire considers the context in which this exchange of sexual content occurs. Specifi cally, it includes motives grounded in beliefs and conventions which support the normalization of this practice (items 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 36), based on the assumption that peer norms play a crucial role in why adolescents publish sexual photos of themselves online (Baumgartner et al., 2015). What is more, explicitly non-consensual reasons for involvement (items 11, 12, 13, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37), as well as those relating to the victim of forwarding dimension, are proving to be important variables when it comes to the study of sexting (Dekker & Thula, 2017). The second aim of this study was to examine the differences between this instrument and the ECIPQ. The study results confi rm its divergent validity. The correlations between both scales highlight the relationship between sexting and cyberbullying. In fact, there is already evidence of a link between sexting and cyberbullying aggression (Rachoene & Oyedemi, 2015) and victimization (Medrano et al., 2018). However, the results also report divergence, given that we have a partial rather than a perfect correlation. This indicates that, despite being direct and related behaviours, they clearly differ on a broad index. Lastly, this study explored the differences in the instrument’s structure by gender. The results suggest that both genders share the same factor structure, although boys and girls attach varying importance to each dimension. Specifi cally, and in accordance with earlier studies, except when it comes to sending and receiving (Beckmeyer et al., 2019), gender differences were found for the remaining SBM-Q dimensions; namely, for those related to nonconsensual forwarding, being a victim of forwarding, reasons for sending and reasons for forwarding (Norman, 2017). From this perspective, the results coincide with studies that report gender-based differences relating to the reasons why adolescents participate in sexting. These studies also report how girls are more often caught up as victims of sexting, fi nding themselves subject to the most harmful consequences associated with this phenomenon (Ringrose et al., 2012; Symons et al., 2018). Taking into account the aforementioned, the SBM-Q is an instrument that collects and incorporates the recommendations made in scientifi c literature for accurately measuring and understanding sexting. It provides an overview of the phenomenon as well as a detailed picture of the behaviours used, sexting motives, and the context in which active participation occurs. This study does, however, present some limitations. These are primarily related to the use of convenience sampling and self-report measures, which always carry a risk of eliciting socially desirable and inaccurate responses. These limitations could be addressed in future research endeavours. Acknowledgements This work has been developed in the framework of the projects PSI2017-86723-R and EDU2013-44627-P funded by the National Research Plan (Government of Spain). The work of Mónica Ojeda is supported by a research grant from the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Government of Spain (FPU15/05037). Table 5 Multi-group analysis by gender χ2 S-B df p NNFI CFI RMSEA SRMR Δ χ2S-B ΔpΔ NNFI Δ CFI Δ RMSEA Δ SRMR Boys 1074.21 687 .00 .97 .97 .04 .06 26.95 .00 .02 .02 .02 .03 Girls 1047.26 687 .00 .99 .99 .02 .03 Rosario del Rey, Mónica Ojeda, and José A. Casas 294 American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association Publications. Barrense-Dias, Y., Berchtold, A., Suris, J. C., & Akre, C. (2017). Sexting and the defi nition issue. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(5), 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.009 Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Sexual self-presentation on social network sites: Who does it and how is it perceived? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 91-100. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.CHB.2015.03.061 Beckmeyer, J. J., Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Dodge, B., Reece, M., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2019). Characteristics of Adolescent Sexting: Results from the 2015 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/009 2623X.2019.1613463 Bryant, F. B., & Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi-Square Testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 372-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10 705511.2012.687671 Calderón Garrido, C., Navarro González, D., Lorenzo Seva, U., & Ferrando Piera, P. J. (2019). Multidimensional or essentially unidimensional? A multi-faceted factoranalytic approach for assessing the dimensionality of tests and items. Psicothema, 31(4), 450-457. https://doi.org/10.7334/ psicothema2019.153 Casas, J. A., Ojeda, M., Elipe, P., & Del Rey, R. (2019). Exploring which factors contribute to teens’ participation in sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.010 Choi, H. J., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 164-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2016.10.005 Dekker, A., & Thula, K. (2017). Sexting as a risk?: On consensual and nonconsensual distribution of personal erotic pictures using digital media. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 60(9), 1034-1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-017-2595-9 Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P., Thompson, F., Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Pyżalski, J., & Plichta, P. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 141-147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065 Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for Factorial Invariance in the Context of Construct Validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121-149. https://doi. org/10.1177/0748175610373459 Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Coefi cientes de fi abilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada [Reliability coeffi cients for ordinal response scales]. Psicothema, 20, 896-901. https://bit.ly/2U5oURz Fajardo, M. I., Gordillo, M., & Regalado, A. B. (2013). Sexting: nuevos usos de la tecnología y la sexualidad en adolescentes [Sexting: New uses of technology and sexuality in adolescents]. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 1(1), 521-534. https:// bit.ly/2U5tmQq Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2018). Assessing the Quality and Appropriateness of Factor Solutions and Factor Score Estimates in Exploratory Item Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 762-780. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013164417719308 Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confi rmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.9.4.466 Frankel, A. S., Bass, S. B., Patterson, F., Dai, T., & Brown, D. (2018). Sexting, Risk Behavior, and Mental Health in Adolescents: An Examination of 2015 Pennsylvania Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data. Journal of School Health, 88(3), 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ josh.12596 Gámez-Guadix, M., de Santisteban, P., & Resett, S. (2017). Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profi les. Psicothema, 29(1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.222 Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall. Houck, C. D., Barker, D., Rizzo, C., Hancock, E., Norton, A., & Brown, L. K. (2014). Sexting and sexual behavior in at-risk adolescents. Pediatrics, 133(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013- 1157 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fi t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Kopecký, K. (2015). Sexting among slovak pubescents and adolescent children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203, 244-250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.289 Lee, C.-H., Moak, S., & Walker, J. T. (2016). Effects of Self-Control, Social Control, and Social Learning on Sexting Behavior Among South Korean Youths. Youth & Society, 48(2), 242-264. https://doi. org/10.1177/0044118X13490762 Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t… if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923009 Livingstone, S., & Görzig, A. (2014). When adolescents receive sexual messages on the internet: Explaining experiences of risk and harm. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2013.12.021 Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fi t the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753 Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/002731 71.2011.564527 Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among Youth. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327-335. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamapediatrics.2017.5314 Marrufo Manzanilla, R. O. (2012). Surgimiento y proliferación del sexting. Probables causas y consecuencias en adolescentes de secundaria [Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Universidad de Yucatán]. https:// bit.ly/33zBMnR Medrano, J. L. J., López Rosales, F., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2018). Assessing the Links of Sexting, Cybervictimization, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation Among University Students. Archives of Suicide Research, 22(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2017.1304304 Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1730 Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Ten steps for test development. Psicothema, 31(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291 Norman, J. (2017). Implications of Parenting Behaviour and Adolescent Attachment for Understanding Adolescent Sexting [Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Windsor]. https://bit.ly/2zNsysI Ojeda, M., Del Rey, R., & Hunter, S. C. (2019). Longitudinal relationships between sexting and involvement in both bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescence, 77, 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2019.10.003 Ojeda, M., Del Rey, R., Walrave, M., & Vandebosch, H. (2020). Sexting in adolescents: Prevalence and behaviours. Comunicar, 28(64), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.3916/c64-2020-01 Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2019). It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(2), 140-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2019.10.010 Penado, M., Rodicio-García, M. L., Marcos Cuesta, M., & Corrás, T. (2019). Construction and Validation of the Intimate Images Diffusion Scale Among Adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1485. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01485 References Validation of the Sexting Behavior and Motives Questionnaire (SBM-Q) 295 Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2014). Blurred lines? Responding to ’sexting’and gender-based violence among young people. Children Australia, 39(2), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2014.9 Rachoene, M., & Oyedemi, T. (2015). From self-expression to social aggression: Cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. Communicatio, 41(3), 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/02 500167.2015.1093325 Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional Item Response Theory. In Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Springer New York. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89976-3 Ricketts, M. L., Maloney, C., Marcum, C. D., & Higgins, G. E. (2015). The Effect of Internet Related Problems on the Sexting Behaviors of Juveniles. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 270-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9247-5 Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone, S., & Harvey, L. (2012). A qualitative study of children, young people and’sexting’: A report prepared for the NSPCC. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. https://bit.ly/2Wc7QLK Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192 Strassberg, D. S., Cann, D., & Velarde, V. (2017). Sexting by High School Students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(6), 1667-1672. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10508-016-0926-9 Symons, K., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2018). Sexting scripts in adolescent relationships: Is sexting becoming the norm? New Media & Society, 20(10), 3836-3857. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444818761869 The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2008). Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults. www. TheNationalCampaign.org/sextech Van Ouytsel, J., Lu, Y., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2019). Longitudinal associations between sexting, cyberbullying, and bullying among adolescents: Cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 73, 36-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.03.008 Van Ouytsel, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2020). Sexting within young adults’ dating and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2020.04.007 Villacampa, C. (2017). Teen sexting: Prevalence, characteristics and legal treatment. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 49, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.01.002 Vizzuetth-Herrera, A., García-Meraz, M., & Guzmán-Saldaña, R. (2015). Construcción y validación de dos escalas para usuarios de redes sociales virtuales: conductas sexuales de riesgo y motivación hacia el sexo en línea [Construction and validation of two scales for users virtual social networks: Risky sexual behaviors and m. Psicología Iberoamericana, 23, 66-74. https://bit.ly/2AzEePA Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi. org/10.1177/0011000006288127