Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings and Reliability Estimates for Couple-Level Minority Stressor Scales (N = 212 Individual Partners from 106 Couples)

COUPLE-LEVEL MINORITY STRESSORS	RELIABILITY ESTIMATES AND FACTOR LOADINGSa (95% Confidence Intervals)
COUPLE-LEVEL STIGMAb	.89 (.86, .91)
1. If something happens to one of us the hospital won’t recognize me or my partner	.50 (.37, .63)
2. Strangers will hassle us when we’re eating in restaurants	.81 (.75, .86)
3. Showing affection for my [partner] when we are in new environments/unfamiliar places	.50 (.39, .61)
4. Strangers will harm us if we display affection in public	.66 (.57, .74)
5. Social situations that may require me to explain more about my relationship than I want	.62 (.53, .71)
6. Our neighbors will discriminate against us	.80 (.73, .87)
7. That if something happens to my [partner], his/her family won’t allow me to be included in the management of his/her affairs	.65 (.55, .75)
8. If something happens to me, my family won’t allow my [partner] to be included in the management of my affairs	.72 (.62, .82)
9. Retirement communities and nursing homes won’t be accepting of us	.63 (.52, .74)
10. My relationship with my [partner] would negatively affect my chances of getting or keeping a job	.65 (.51, .79)
COUPLE-LEVEL DISCRIMINATIONc	.94 (.93, .95)
1. People we know asked that we not show affection toward one another in their presence	.72 (.64, .80)
2. People we know asked us to hide physical displays of affection (e.g., hugging or kissing) towards one another around children	.80 (.74, .85)
3. We received poor service in restaurants or stores	.76 (.69, .82)
4. People we know sat or stood away from us when we were together in public	.79 (.74, .85)
5. We were harassed when we were out in public together	.78 (.73, .86)
6. We have been denied the right to be together in health care settings (e.g., to visit one another in the hospital)	.79 (.73, .86)
7. People we know went out of their way to avoid talking about our relationship	.76 (.70, .82)
8. People we know said that they wished my [partner] was the “opposite sex”	.81 (.76, .86)
9. We were made fun of when we were out in public together	.79 (.73, .85)
10. At times when we talked about our life as a couple, people we know cut us off or tried to change the subject	.80 (.75, .86)
SEEKING SAFETY AS A COUPLEd	.83 (.79, .87)
1. When planning travel, we consider whether potential destinations are accepting of us as a couple	.79 (.73, .86)
2. We would like to move to a new city or neighborhood that is more accepting us as a couple	.60 (.47, .72)
3. We have to be cautious when traveling to less tolerant areas	.65 (.54, .72)
4. There are places we would never consider living as a couple	.51 (.37, .65)
5. We try to work with professionals (e.g., attorneys and health service providers) that we know are accepting of other couples like us	.65 (.53, .77)
6. When choosing where to live, it is important to find a neighborhood where there are couples like us	.69 (.61, .77)
7. We choose to shop at stores where we feel welcomed as a couple	.63 (.50, .75)
PERCEIVED UNEQUAL RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITIONd	.79 (.73, .84)
1. Important milestones (e.g., buying a house or writing a will) are complicated for us	.79 (.71, .86)
2. It is difficult for us to keep up with the changing legal status of same-sex relationships	.77 (.69, .85)
3. It is harder for us to file our tax returns than it is for other couples	.67 (.56, .78)
COUPLE-LEVEL VISIBILITYc	.89 (.87, .91)
1. We tried to hide our relationship to avoid making others feel uncomfortable	.78 (.71, . 85)
2. We went “back in the closet” when traveling to conservative or unfamiliar places	.70 (.63, .78)
3. We avoided displaying LGBTQ identified symbols (e.g., Rainbow Flag, Pink Triangle) at our home or on our car(s)	.58 (.42, .74)
4. We avoided social interactions that might require us to answer questions about our relationship	.77 (.70, .84)
5. We avoided talking about our relationship	.80 (.74, .86)
6. We misrepresented one another as friends, roommates, siblings, cousins, etc.	.80 (.72, .88)
7. We found it challenging to tell people about our relationship	.66 (.57, .76)
8. We had to come out as a couple to get the things we want in life	.49 (.34, .64)
9. I wrestle with whether it’s easier to go to important events alone or with my [partner]d	.70 (.61, .78)
MANAGING STEREOTYPES ABOUT SAME-SEX COUPLESd	.81 (.77, .85)
1. There are no good role models for how to be in a same-sex relationship	.59 (.49, .69)
2. We have to make our own rules about what it is like to be in a same-sex couple	.41 (.28, .54)
3. People assume one of us is more like “the man” in the relationship and the other is more like “the woman” in the relationship	.56 (.42, .70)
4. People think our relationship is mainly about sex	.76 (.68, .84)
5. People assume we do not want to be parents	.74 (.66, .82)
6. People assume we have an open or non-monogamous relationship	.77 (.70, .84)
LACK OF INTEGRATION WITH FAMILIES OF ORIGINd	.91 (.88, .93)
1. We prefer to attend family holidays and events together (R)	.79 (.73, .86)
2. My family acknowledges that my [partner] and I are in a relationship with each other (R)	.79 (.73, .86)
3. My [partner’s] family acknowledges that we are in a relationship with each other (R)	.71 (.59, .83)
4. My family invites my [partner] to family holidays or events (R)	.83 (.77, .89)
5. My [partner’s] family invites me to family holidays or events (R)	.80 (.70, .90)
6. We include our families in our celebrations and events (R)	.84 (.79, .90)
LACK OF SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR COUPLESd, e	.75 (.70, .81)
1. There is no one that my [partner] and I can call when we are having a rough time in our relationship	.64 (.52, .76)
2. There are people we know who are rooting for us to make it as a couple (R)	.67 (.57, .77)
3. People we know support our efforts to achieve our goals as a couple (R)	.73 (.63, .83)
4. People we know take concerns about our safety seriously (R)	.63 (.53, .73)

Notes: Standardized factor loadings and 95% confidence intervals were generated from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) estimated in Mplus version 8 using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and test statistics (Mplus estimator MLR). Confidence intervals are adjusted for clustering of individuals within couples (Mplus analysis TYPE = COMPLEX). Reliability coefficients were similarly computed in Mplus for each subscale under the same MLR and COMPLEX estimation settings used in the CFA. Reliability confidence intervals are based on logit transformation of the cluster-adjusted standard errors from Mplus.

^aReliability estimates for each subscale; standardized factor loadings for each item.

^bResponse categories: 0 = not at all; 1 = a little; 2 = a moderate amount; 3 = a lot; 4 = a great deal

^cResponse categories: 0 = never; 1 = rarely; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = always

^dResponse categories: 0 = not at all true; 1 = somewhat true; 2 = moderately true; 3 = mostly true; 4 = completely true

^e(R) items are reverse-coded when creating subscales.