. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2016 Mar 23;45(6):1329–1346. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0694-6

Table 3.

Items’ means (standard deviations), polychoric correlations, and factor loadings from lesbian half samples

	Mean (SD)^a	Polychoric correlations													Factor loadings
Half sample 1 (n=594)		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	Tentative model^b			Final model^c

1. not good	1.83 (1.22)														.76			.76
2. not normal	1.91 (1.32)	.59													.70			.71
3. not healthy	1.53 (0.98)	.68	.59												.90			.90
4. can’t accept	1.61 (1.09)	.58	.58	.77											.82			.82
5. try not to	1.54 (1.05)	.65	.58	.74	.70										.85
6. disappointed	1.54 (0.99)	.62	.63	.70	.70	.66
7. wrong to family	2.69 (1.52)	.41	.33	.43	.47	.40	.62									.73			.74
8. hard on self	1.89 (1.25)	.57	.49	.60	.57	.62	.84	.70								.90			.89
9. wish not	1.98 (1.33)	.54	.42	.60	.54	.63	.77	.69	.80							.92			.92
10. want change	1.84 (1.27)	.49	.34	.58	.53	.59	.65	.58	.69	.80						.84			.84
11. should not start	3.25 (1.48)	−.05	.07	.01	.00	.08	.22	.30	.24	.25	.14
12. H not normal	1.51 (1.02)	.37	.47	.47	.45	.36	.50	.30	.41	.42	.33	.04					.90			.90
13. H against nature	1.55 (1.05)	.38	.46	.51	.42	.40	.53	.34	.39	.41	.40	.21	.83				.92			.92
14. H morally wrong	1.32 (0.77)	.39	.46	.55	.44	.45	.52	.36	.42	.40	.34	.39	.79	.80			.90			.89

Half sample 2 (n=593)		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.		7.	8.	9.	10.		12.	13.				final model

1. not good	1.75 (1.19)																	.83
2. not normal	1.84 (1.32)	.71																.83
3. not healthy	1.57 (1.06)	.74	.76															.90
4. can’t	1.55 (1.05)	.72	.71	.79														.89
5. try not to	1.43 (0.87)	.63	.57	.69	.75
7. wrong to family	2.62 (1.49)	.50	.47	.59	.55	.56													.77
8. hard on self	1.90 (1.25)	.61	.63	.64	.70	.69		.73											.91
9. wish not	1.86 (1.25)	.54	.49	.54	.62	.67		.65	.78										.88
10. want change	1.76 (1.21)	.58	.48	.56	.60	.70		.58	.70	.81									.85
12. H not normal	1.50 (1.01)	.56	.60	.62	.55	.42		.35	.45	.43	.42									.95
13. H against nature	1.58 (1.09)	.51	.51	.55	.47	.42		.39	.38	.34	.41		.86							.89
14. H morally wrong	1.37 (0.86)	.54	.54	.63	.59	.48		.39	.47	.44	.43		.84	.80						.90

SD = standard deviation. Means and SDs were calculated on the items’ raw scale.

The tentative model resulted from step 1 analysis – factor analysis of the lesbian half sample 1. This model fit well to this half sample: CFI=.99, TLI=.99, RMSEA=.052, RMSEA 90% CI=(.041,.063), chi-square(131.73, 51df) p-value<.0001.

The final model was a modification of the tentative model after testing it in the lesbian half sample 2. This model fit well to half sample 2 (CFI=.99, TLI=.98, RMSEA=.064, RMSEA 90% CI=.052,.076), chi-square(100.69, 41df) p-value<.0001) as well as half sample 1 (CFI=.99, TLI=.99, RMSEA=.050, RMSEA 90% CI=(.037,.062), chi-square(139.76, 41df) p-value<.0001). For half samples 1 and 2 respectively, correlations between factors 1 and 2 were .74 and .79; between factors 1 and 3 were .62 and .71; and between factors 2 and 3 were .49 and .52.