Skip to main content
SAHARA J : Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance logoLink to SAHARA J : Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance
. 2021 Nov 17;18(1):156–169. doi: 10.1080/17290376.2021.2002714

Explicating factors that explain condom use intention among in-school adolescents in Botswana: a structural equation modelling approach

Kolentino N Mpeta a,CONTACT, Ntebogang D Moroke b, Lesego Gabaitiri c
PMCID: PMC8604454  PMID: 34789071

ABSTRACT

Knowledge with respect to adolescents’ intentions to engage in protective sexual behaviours is still deficient in numerous countries around the world, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where HIV prevalence is the highest. Increasing cross-sectional research suggests that the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is robust in predicting condom use intentions. This study used secondary, baseline data from a study involving 794 in-school adolescents. A structural equation model was applied to the data. Latent variables were used to validate the applicability of the TPB in HIV/AIDS prevention among adolescents in the Botswana context. The predictors of interest were all derived from the TPB. The results revealed that the TPB predictors, apart from affective and instrumental attitude, were predictive of condom use intention among Batswana adolescents. The independent variables explained 57% of the variance in the model. These results suggest that the TPB is recommended as a framework to establish the predictors of condom use intention among Batswana in-school adolescents. Policy makers working on developing HIV education programmes or interventions targeted at adolescents should improve the intention to use condoms via promotion of positive instrumental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control beliefs of condom use.

KEYWORDS: Theory of planned behaviour, structural equation modelling, attitudes, subjective norms

Introduction

The problem of adolescent HIV is concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, with 82% of the world’s HIV-positive adolescents living in this region, mainly in southern Africa (Idele et al., 2014). While there is growing evidence that shows that behavioural interventions based on grounded theoretical frameworks and theory-based determinants could reduce HIV risk-associated behaviours such as premarital unprotected sex and having multiple sexual partners, few studies have been conducted in SSA, more especially with Batswana adolescents. Findings from this study will therefore guide researchers and policy makers on the variables that they need to target when designing interventions targeted at condom use among adolescents.

Of the 35 million people living with HIV in 2015 worldwide, a fifth were minors and youth under the age of 25 (UNAIDS, 2014). Adolescents aged 10–19 years accounted for an estimated 2.1 million HIV infections (Idele et al., 2014), and young adults aged 20–24 account for an estimated 2.8 million infections (UNAIDS, 2014), implying that almost 5 million young people between the ages of 10 and 24 are living with HIV. Approximately 300,000 new HIV infections occur annually among adolescents aged 15–19 years, based on 2012 estimates (Idele et al., 2014). Worldwide, two-thirds of these infections are among females, but in some countries, more than 80% of new infections are among females (Idele et al., 2014).

In Botswana, the HIV and AIDS epidemic is largely driven through sexual transmission (UNAIDS, 2012). The Botswana government therefore recognised behaviour change as the solitary lasting answer to the prevention of the HIV and AIDS epidemic (UNAIDS, 2012). Since young people are major sufferers in this epidemic, there is a need to come up with informed, culturally sensitive and effective intervention programmes especially targeted at adolescents aged between ages 15 and 19 years. Agyei and Abrefa-Gyan (2016) in their study that sampled 17–24 year old students from the University of Botswana, examined risky sexual patterns and the use of condoms among youth in Botswana. The study indicated that 33% of the sexually active respondents had unprotected sex in the month preceding the survey. The foregoing statistics are indicative of a challenge regarding the use of condoms and point to a need for condom use promotion, especially targeted at young people.

It is interesting to note that most studies about socio-cognitive model applications to condom use intentions focus on young adults and adults. Few studies have fully examined condom use intentions among in-school adolescents. This study, therefore, examined psychosocial factors associated with adolescents’ intention to use condoms and validated the applicability of the TPB in the Botswana setting.

The TPB is a well-researched model that predicts behaviour across a variety of settings. The theory suggests that any behaviour will almost certainly happen when there is a firm goal or strong intention as well as the capacity to carry out the conduct and when there are no environmental barriers to doing so (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Fishbein, 2000). In the context of TPB, attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norm or normative beliefs, and Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) influence behavioural intention. Attitudes are personal beliefs about the behaviour. They consist of behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations. Normative beliefs or norms are beliefs about what the significant others feel about the behaviour. They are a social pressure to either carry out or not to carry out a given behaviour. Lastly, PBC beliefs are perceptions about one’s ability to perform the behaviour.

Even though the constructs of the TPB are deemed universal, it is recognised that cultural variations have an effect on the dynamics of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Since Botswana’s culture is unlike cultures in western or Asian countries, it is essential to investigate the Batswana population to ascertain whether the TPB could be a suitable framework to study the factors that motivate condom use intention among Batswana in-school adolescents while applying appropriate statistical methods.

Risky sexual behaviours such as early sexual debut, multiple sexual partners, and non-use of condoms expose and put adolescents at risk of HIV infection (Idele et al., 2014). Adolescence is therefore a critical time to encourage healthy sexual behaviours; healthy practices established during adolescence are likely to be retained through adulthood (Romero, Galbraith, Wilson-Williams, & Gloppen, 2011). Kapogiannis, Legins, Chandan, and Lee (2014) concur that adolescence and young adulthood are crucial occasions of life in which attitudes, practices, and ways of life are formed which will influence health and well-being for the rest of one’s lifetime. Jemmott (2012) suggests that young adolescents, before or just after becoming sexually active, are very suitable and important intervention targets due to their high vulnerability and the fact that they are yet to establish habitual sexual behaviour patterns.

Available data suggest that a vast number of new infections in many parts of the African continent occur in adolescents, with female adolescents exhibiting a more prominent likelihood to acquire the infection (Okonofua, 2013). The manifestation of new infections among adolescents could be ascribed to young people’s engagement in sexual risk behaviours that could lead to unintended health outcomes. Culturally sensitive and effective interventions to reduce the high risky sexual behaviours remain one hopeful approach to alleviating these effects for African adolescents.

Literature review

The TPB has been extensively utilised to study condom use intention among different groups, for instance, men who have sex with men (Wolitski & Zhang, 2007), injection drug users (Macalino et al., 2009), female commercial sex workers (Janner, Wolitski, Corby, & Fishbein, 1998), and high school-age adolescents (Bryan, Fisher, & Fisher, 2002; Rannie & Craig, 1997; Wise, Goggin, Gerkovich, Metcalf, & Kennedy, 2006).

While the TPB has been utilised as a theoretical framework for predicting condom use in such populations as Europeans (Carmack & Lewis-Moss, 2009; Mausbach, Semple, Strathdee, & Patterson, 2009; Muñoz-Silva, Sánchez-García, Martins, & Nunes, 2009), Africans (Bryan, Kagee, & Broaddus, 2006; Sacolo et al., 2013; Schaalma et al., 2009) and Asians (Cha, Doswell, Kim, Charron-Prochownik, & Patrick, 2007; Molla, Nordrehaug Åstrøm, & Brehane, 2007), none of the studies have utilised the TPB to explore the influence of attitudes, normative beliefs, and perceived behavioural control with respect to Batswana in-school adolescents’ condom use intentions. It is worth noting that theories that could be relevant to certain populations may not be appropriate for other populations as a result of variances in culture, language, history and education. It is for this reason that some authors (e.g. Airhihenbuwa & Obregon, 2000; Campbell & Murray, 2004; Campbell, Nair, & Maimane, 2007) have intensely quizzed the applicability and suitability of socio-cognitive theories, such as the TPB, in non-western and, particularly, African settings, advancing cultural and particularly community considerations as more essential. In reaction to this, the TPB has been proven to have good predictive capabilities outside a Western context where it was first established (Schaalma et al., 2009).

SEM has been applied in a few of the studies involving the TPB model, including studies in various African settings. For instance, Schaalma et al. (2009) applied SEM in their study aimed at testing the applicability of an expanded form of the TPB on intentions to use condoms among sizeable samples of young people in South Africa and Tanzania. Their study showed that intentions to use condoms are largely motivated by perceptions of control, perceived social norms and attitudes. This finding was in agreement with studies carried out in Europe and the United States of America (Albarracín, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001; Sheeran, Abraham, & Orbell, 1999).

Bryan et al. (2006), also applied SEM to investigate the capability of TPB predictors to explain the proportion of variability in condom use intentions among South African teenagers. The study further ascertained the degree to which consistent with the TPB, intentions prospectively predict condom use behaviour. Sacolo et al. (2013) made use of the SEM approach to investigate the TPB for predicting elements related to safer sexual behaviours, including sexual abstinence and condom use, among in-school youths aged 15–19 years in Swaziland. Results from the study conducted among Swazi in-school youth, found that perceived control for condom use was the strongest predictor of condom use intention (β = 0.36, p < 0.01) followed by subjective norms (β = 0.27, p < 0.01), and attitudes (β = 0.26, p < 0.01).

More recently, Teye-Kwadjo, Kagee, and Swart (2017a), utilised SEM in their study aimed at determining condom use predictors among heterosexual young people in south-eastern Ghana. The TPB was used as the guiding framework of this study with the results indicating that attitudes toward condom use (b = .38; 95% CI [.14, .62], p < .001) and perceived behavioural control over condom use (b = .47; 95% CI [.31, .63], p < .001) were significantly positively associated with condom use intention. Subjective norms were however not statistically significantly associated with condom use intention (b = .06; 95% CI [−.14, .26], p = .593). Results from the structural model used to examine the direct relationships between the TPB constructs indicated good model fit. The χ2 test of the model was statistically significant with a value of 241.12 (112, N = 684), p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.15, CFI = .967, RMSEA = .041; 90% CI [.034, .048]. The cross-sectional structural model explained 61% of the variance in condom use intention.

Objectives

From the reviewed articles in the previous section, studies on knowledge with respect to adolescents’ intentions to engage in protective sexual behaviours are still deficient in most settings in SSA despite the view that this could be a key factor in addressing HIV/AIDS issues. According to our knowledge, in the context of Botswana where data for this study was collected and HIV prevalence is one of the highest, there is no study that has looked at TPB to predict condom use intention via structural equation. Therefore the aim of the current study is to:

  1. analyse factors (attitudes, normative beliefs and perceived behavioural control), all derived from the TPB, associated with condom use intention among Batswana in-school adolescents and

  2. confirm the TPB as an applicable framework in establishing the predictors of condom use intention among in-school adolescents in the Botswana context.

Empirical literature reveals that attitudes and beliefs about condoms affect both individuals’ intentions to use condoms and actual condom use. In this study, both instrumental and affective attitudes were considered. Instrumental attitude referred to the preventive benefits of condoms while affective attitude denoted Batswana adolescents’ negative feelings or thoughts about condom use. Normative beliefs were indicative of the adolescents’ perceptions of the significant others’ (father, mother, partner and friends) approval or disapproval of them using condoms. Perceived behavioural control represented Batswana adolescents’ perceptions of how easy or difficult it was for them to use condoms or negotiate use of condoms with a partner.

Incidentally, adolescents are more likely to use condoms when they identify some benefits and develop positive attitudes toward condoms (Maharaj & Cleland, 2005; Taylor et al., 2014). Thus the first hypothesis tested in this study was:

H1: Instrumental attitude (Instr_Att) has a positive and significant effect on condom use intention. (CdmUse Intention)

Van Rossem and Meekers (2011), note that youth are less likely to use condoms when they perceive barriers and develop negative attitudes toward them. Furthermore, young people may neither use nor intend to use condoms when they believe and perceive condoms as unreliable and capable of reducing sexual pleasure (Katikiro & Njau, 2012; Ochieng, Kakai, & Abok, 2011). This led to the second hypothesis tested in the study:

H2: Affective attitude (Aff_Att) has a negative and significant effect on condom use intention. (CdmUse Intention)

Bennett and Bozionelos (2000) in their review of 20 studies focusing on the utility of the TPB in predicting condom use established a positive and significant relationship between normative beliefs and condom use intentions in 14 of the studies. Moreover, Ebrahim, Davis, and Tomaka (2017) hypothesised that higher condom use intentions will be predicted by higher positive attitudes, norms and greater perceived behavioural control. Consequently, the following hypotheses were tested in this study:

H3: Normative beliefs (Norms) have a positive and significant effect on condom use intention. (CdmUse Intention)

H4: Perceived behavioural control (Perceived control) has a positive and significant effect on condom use intention. (CdmUse Intention)

Methods

Ever since Jöreskog’s (1967) ground-breaking work on the maximum likelihood factor analysis and its subsequent expansions to the estimation of structural equation systems (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1973), SEM has grown into one of the most significant techniques of empirical research. Structural equation modelling is a technique for determining relationships among unobserved (latent) variables and has been operational since early in the twentieth century (Shah & Goldstein, 2006). According to Lei and Wu (2007), SEM refers to a large number of statistical models that are used to evaluate the validity of substantive theories with observed data. Structural equation models (SEMs) allow complex modelling of interrelated multivariate data for assessing interrelationships among observed and latent variables (Song, Lee, & Hser, 2008). SEM was established to test and improve theoretical models endeavouring to clarify or predict social or behavioural phenomena (Bentler, 1988). It typically begins with a hypothesis, denotes it as a model, operationalises the constructs of interest with a measurement instrument and tests the model. Structural equation models (SEMs) have been advanced in numerous academic specialities to confirm and test theory (Schumacker & Lomax, 2016). They are frequently used to evaluate unobservable ‘latent’ constructs.

Application of SEM could be impacted by

  • Normality of the data

  • Outliers

  • Multicollinearity

  • Missing data

  • Sample size

The Covariance-Based SEM (CB-SEM) Maximum Likelihood (ML) approach used in this study, like many other multivariate statistical techniques, requires data to be multivariate normal (Astrachan, Patel, & Wanzenried, 2014). The normality of the data, which is a fundamental assumption for making justifiable inferences, can be tested by means of several statistical tests or visual inspection (Ramzan, Zahid, & Ramzan, 2013). Multivariate non-normality can often be detected through an inspection of outliers. Violating this assumption may result in problems since non-normality affects the accuracy of statistical tests. IBM SPSS Analysis Moment Structure (AMOS) 25.0, used for modelling the data in this study, provides normality checks for data including skewness, kurtosis indexes and Mardia’s coefficient which is a test of multivariate normality. A multivariate kurtosis greater than the critical ratio (c.r.) value indicates that the data are non-normally distributed. A graphical approach based on the distribution of ordered Mahalanobis distances of the individual sample points from their mean as suggested by Ramzan et al. (2013), was applied in this study. Multivariate normality is assessed using a chi-square versus ordered Mahalanobis distance plot (Arifin, 2015). The graphical technique follows the following three steps:

  • Mahalanobis distances are sorted in ascending order.

  • Quantiles associated with the upper percentiles of the chi-square distribution are calculated.

  • Pairs of the quantiles and Mahalanobis distances are then plotted to obtain a scatter plot.

A multivariate normal distribution is shown by the points forming a straight line (Burdenski, 2000). In instances where the normality assumption is violated, Zainudin (2012) recommends continuation with the analysis using the ML approach coupled with reconfirming the result through bootstrapping. Yung and Bentler (1996) concur that the bootstrap procedure affords a tool for tackling situations where assumptions of large sample size and/or multivariate normality may not hold.

SEM also assumes that the data should be free of outliers. Byrne (2010, p. 105) defines outliers as ‘cases whose scores are substantially different from all others in a particular set of data’. Outliers affect the model significance (Garson, 2015). Multivariate outliers can be examined and detected using the squared value of Mahalanobis distance. IBM SPSS AMOS 25.0 calculates the squared values of Mahalanobis distance and also provides information related to possible outliers (Byrne, 2010). Usually, an outlying case will have a squared Mahalanobis distance value that stands apart from all other squared values. Gallagher, Ting, and Palmer (2008) advise that the decision of whether to delete or retain outliers should be given careful consideration as important information may be lost when excluding them.

SEM further assumes absence of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity refers to situations where measured variables are so highly correlated such that they are in essence redundant (Weston & Gore, 2006). Since related measures are used as indicators of constructs, they suggest that there is a possibility that the measures may be too highly related for certain statistical operations to function properly. A rough guideline for checking multicollinearity is to screen bivariate correlations. According to Kline (2011), bivariate correlations greater than r = 0.85 can be indicative of potential problems. Most regression software packages have a ‘tolerance’ parameter as part of the analysis output.

Like in most multivariate methods, missing observations can be problematic (Enders, 2010; Zhang & Little, 2009). When the sample size is greater than 250 and the proportion of missing data for the analysed variables is less than 10%, Gallagher et al. (2008) recommend the implementation of listwise deletion. In this method, cases that have any missing data are deleted from the analysis.

Sample size considerations are very important before running a SEM analysis. While large samples result in less sampling error compared to small samples, some difference of opinion exists with regard to recommended sample sizes for SEMs (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). The required sample size is dependent on the data quality, complexity of the model and the estimation method that is applied. Generally, larger samples are required for non-normal data. While Loehlin (2004) recommended that a model with 2–4 latent factors needs at least 100 responses, Bentler and Chou (1987) recommended that there should be 5 responses per estimated parameter. Kline (2011) suggests that a larger sample size of more than 200 is more appropriate for SEM while Stevens (2009) proposed at least 15 cases per observed variable or indicator. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2014a, p. 574) recommended a minimum sample size of 300 for models containing seven or fewer constructs with lower communalities (<0.45). According to Gallagher et al. (2008) ‘prevailing agreement has long been that SEM requires a large sample size’.

Sample size calculation in the original study was informed by pilot data. It was anticipated that the intervention would reduce the proportion of participants reporting unprotected sex in the previous 3 months from 4.5% in the control group to 1.5% in the intervention group, giving an estimated moderate effect size of a 3% difference between the study groups. Setting the type I error at 0.05 for a 2-tailed test with power of 80% and estimating 10% attrition over the 12-month follow-up period, resulted in 557 participants in each group, for a total sample size of 1114, to detect the specified effect.

Of the 1265 students who returned signed parent or guardian consent forms, 806 agreed to participate. Six out of 806 (0.74%) had missing data. Since the proportion of missing data was very low, listwise deletion was applied following the suggestions of Kang (2013), to deal with missing data and mitigate the chances of inaccuracy. Furthermore, data for the remaining 800 participants was assessed for unengaged responses. According to Gaskin’s (2012) recommendation, participants with standard deviation values less than 0.5 for all possible items were removed from the dataset. Six such participants were excluded thus resulting in a final analysis sample of 794 participants. With 20 observed variables considered as possible model candidates, the resultant cases-to-observed variables ratio, found by dividing 794 by 20, was approximately 40:1 which almost trebled Stevens’ (2009) 15:1 ratio. In addition, the number exceeded the 300 minimum recommended by Hair et al. (2014a). The sample size used in this research was therefore adequate.

Participants and procedure

Baseline data consisting of 794 participants from Gaborone schools and its surrounding areas was used in this study. All community junior secondary schools were eligible to participate provided the principal signed the consent form for the school’s participation. From the twenty schools which agreed to participate, adolescents were selected using stratified random sampling. Participants were stratified by gender and completed a survey via audio/computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology. The initial project which collected the data was a collaboration project between the University of Botswana and University of Pennsylvania. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Botswana as well as the IRB of the Botswana Ministry of Education. Furthermore, the participants’ parents or guardians signed a consent form while the adolescents signed an assent form prior to participating in the project. For purposes of this particular study, permission to use the data was sought in writing from the University of Botswana. Ethical clearance was also sought and given by the North West University (Ethics number NWU-00151-16-A9).

Measures

Manifest variables indicating attitude (affective and instrumental attitude), subjective (injective) norms, perceived controllability and self-efficacy are examined in the condom use intention model. The variables together with their indicators as well as description are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Candidate condom use intention variables for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and SEM analysis.

Latent variable Indicators Description
Norms NO1 My girlfriend/boyfriend would think it is OK for us to use condoms  …  in the next 3 months
NO2 My mother/female guardian would think it is OK for me to use condoms … in the next 3 months
NO3 My father/male guardian would think it is OK for me to use condoms … in the next 3 months
NO4 My friends would think it is OK for me to use condoms … .in the next 3 months
Aff_Att AA1 Condoms are embarrassing to use
AA2 Condoms reduce pleasure
AA3 Condoms cause pain
AA4 Condoms make you not want to have sex because you have to stop to put one on
Instr_Att AA5 When a condom is used, sex still feels good
AA6 When a condom is used, sex is more fun
IA1 Condoms help prevent STDs
IA2 Condoms help prevent AIDS
IA3 Condoms help prevent pregnancy
Perceived Control PC1 I can talk to the person with whom I have sex about using condoms
PC2 I can get the person with whom I have sex to use a condom, even if he/she doesn’t want me to use a condom
PC3 I can say to the person with whom I have sex that we should use a condom
PC4 Before we are ready to have sex, I can talk to the person with whom I have sex about using a condom
PC5 I can convince the person with whom I have sex to use a condom
PC6 I feel confident that I could easily persuade my sex partner to use a condom before we started having sex
PC7 If I am sexually aroused, I can stop before sex to use a condom
PC8 If my partner and I do not have a condom, I can say no to sex
PC9 I am sure that I can always use a condom if I have sex
PC10 I can put a condom on without turning off the person with whom I have sex
PC11 I can put on a condom, even if the room is dark
CdmUse Intention CUI1 I will try my best to use condoms if I have sex in the next 3 months
CUI2 I plan to always use condoms if I have sex in the next 3 months

The questionnaire rated the construct items (indicators) listed in Table 1 above on a 5-point Likert scale from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). Each question was reviewed to determine whether it made sense in the cultural context of Tswana-speaking adolescents.

Participants’ knowledge regarding STIs and safer sex practices was assessed by means of 24 yes – no questions. In order for participating not to guess, the ‘I don’t know’ response option was available. A correct answer was given a single point while an incorrect or an ‘I don’t know’ answer was not awarded any point. Thus the total possible knowledge score ranged from 0 to 24 points. Knowledge concerning STIs and knowledge of HIV differed extensively within the sample. The total knowledge score for this sample ranged from 5 to 24 with a mean score of 16.55 and a standard deviation of 3.55. Included in the knowledge questions were 5 questions associated with condom use, storage and technical skills about use of condoms. Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of the adolescents who responded correctly and incorrectly to the questions.

Table 2.

Condom use knowledge frequency distribution (n = 793).

Question/statement Correct Incorrect
Can people reduce their chances of getting HIV/AIDS by using a condom correctly every time they have sex? 675 (85.1) 118 (14.9)
When s condom is placed on the penis, space should be left at the tip of the condom. 457 (57.6) 336 (42.4)
Storing or carrying condoms in a hot or warm place can destroy their effectiveness. 554 (69.9) 239 (30.1)
The penis should be hard when the condom is put on it. 502 (63.3) 291 (36.7)
If you place a condom on the penis the wrong way, you should start over with a new condom. 539 (68.0) 254 (32.0)

As shown in Table 2, generally the majority of adolescents in the sample were familiar with condom use knowledge. An overwhelming majority (85.1%) of the adolescents in the sample knew that the risks of getting HIV/AIDS could be reduced by using a condom correctly every time people have sex. Approximately two-thirds of the adolescents in the sample were aware that condom effectiveness could be weakened by heat, a condom had to be worn on a stiff penis and placing a condom the wrong way required starting over with a new condom. About 42% of the adolescents were oblivious to the need to leave space at the tip of the condom when placing the condom on the penis.

Data analysis and results

The current analyses relate to a sample of 794 adolescents (n = 368 males; n = 426 females). Participants’ ages ranged from 13 to 18 years with a mean of 14.7 and standard deviation of 0.93 years. The majority (87.2%) of the participants had never had sexual intercourse while the remaining 12.8% indicated that they had had sex before.

Assessment of normality of the data

Figure 1 shows a plot of the chi-square percentiles against the ordered mahalanobis distances. The points in the plot do not follow a straight line thus the data does not follow a multivariate normal distribution. Additional valuable information which is evident from this plot is the presence of a multivariate outlier. Besides the graphical approach, normality assessment was also done using IBM SPSS AMOS 25.0. Table 3 shows the normality assessment output obtained from the ‘test for normality and outliers’ procedure in IBM SPSS AMOS 25.0.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Chi-square probability plot.

Table 3.

Assessment of normality results.

Variable skewness kurtosis c.r.
NO1 −1.451 1.583 9.103
NO2 −1.326 0.658 3.782
NO3 −1.242 0.443 2.546
NO4 −1.202 0.673 3.872
IA1 −1.948 3.516 20.224
IA2 −2.020 4.189 24.093
IA3 −2.115 5.152 29.633
CUI2 −1.872 3.992 22.963
CUI1 −1.876 3.827 22.014
AA4 0.905 0.143 0.824
AA3 1.246 1.240 7.130
AA2 0.501 −0.807 −4.642
AA1 1.517 1.527 8.785
PC1 −1.195 0.881 5.066
PC2 −0.983 0.197 1.130
PC3 −1.646 3.228 18.566
PC4 −1.544 3.044 17.506
PC5 −1.229 1.284 7.384
PC6 −0.985 0.585 3.365
PC9 −1.436 2.337 13.442
Multivariate   310.268 147.359

The univariate normality assessment displayed in Table 3 was done by evaluating the measure of skewness and kurtosis for each item. The skewness and kurtosis indices showed acceptable ranges based on Kline’s (2011) recommendations that the skewness and kurtosis indices should not exceed |3| and |10|, respectively to ensure normality of the data. The data in this study thus satisfied the univariate normality assumption. However, since the multivariate kurtosis statistic (310.268) exceeded c.r. (147,359), the assumption of multivariate normality was not met. This is in agreement with the results from the preceding graphical analysis. Since the multivariate normality assumption was not met, Zainudin (2012)’s recommendation of continuing with the analysis using the ML approach combined with reconfirming the result through bootstrapping was followed.

Anderson and Gerbig’s (1988) two-step SEM strategy using IBM SPSS Amos 25.0 was used to perform the SEM. The strategy involves separate estimation of the measurement model before the estimation of the structural model. Parameters were estimated using the ML estimation procedure. Figure 2 shows the final CFA standardised estimates (factor loadings and correlations), after deletion of indicators having factor loadings <0.5, for the measurement model in the form of a path diagram.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path diagram showing CFA standardised estimates.

Modification was done in two steps. In the first step, PC7, PC10 and PC11 from the perceived control variable as well as AA5 and AA6 from the Aff_Att latent variable were deleted from the original model. In the second step, PC8 was deleted. The two deletions resulted in the improvement of fit indices (results are shown in Appendix 1) and statistically significant (p < 0.001) measurement item loadings. The item loadings ranged from 0.53 (indicative of moderate strength) to 0.92 (indicative of high strength).

To ensure convergent validity, the researcher checked if items loaded on their respective constructs with standardised loadings greater than 0.5, average variance extracted (AVE) > 0.5, composite reliability (CR) > 0.6 and item-total correlation > 0.6 (Hair et al., 2014a). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the AVE is a measure of the amount of variance that is described by a construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error. The results obtained for the measurement model, using excel, are given in Table 4.

Table 4.

Measurement model convergent validity results.

Constructs Cronbach’s test Composite Reliability AVE Measurement factor Loadings (λ)
Item-total correlation α value
Affective_Attitude (Aff_Att) AA1 0.427 0.651 0.659 0.327 0.561
AA2 0.430 0.528
AA3 0.451 0.628
AA4 0.444 0.566
Instrumental_Attitude (Instr_Att) IA1 0.729 0.873 0.878 0.707 0.792
IA2 0.808 0.903
IA3 0.743 0.823
Perceived control PC1 0.559 0.842 0.846 0.443 0.604
PC2 0.522 0.570
PC3 0.692 0.764
PC4 0.700 0.784
PC5 0.631 0.694
PC6 0.565 0.630
PC9 0.489 0.580
Normative beliefs (Norms) NO1 0.672 0.890 0.891 0.676 0.685
NO2 0.821 0.916
NO3 0.827 0.921
NO4 0.726 0.739
CdmUse intention CUI1 0.735 0.847 0.848 0.736 0.884
CUI2 0.735 0.831

As can be seen in Table 4, all items had factor loadings greater than 0.5. The CR for each latent variable exceeded 0.6 as required. The Cronbach alpha values for all variables except Aff_Att were high (>0.8). While the Cronbach alpha value for Aff_Att fell below the target value of 0.7, it was however marginally acceptable. Despite the shortcomings indicated for the affective attitude and perceived control constructs, all other requirements were met satisfactorily. The measured variables were therefore all good indicators of their respective factors (latent variables).

Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which a construct is fully distinct from another construct both in terms of how much it correlates with other constructs and how distinctly measured variables represent only this single construct. Discriminant validity was measured by comparing the AVE estimates for each factor with the squared inter-construct correlation (SIC) for that factor. Evidence of discriminant validity is shown by AVE > SIC (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014b; Heeler & Ray, 1972; Thompson, 2003). The inter-correlation matrix as well as the AVE were used to assess discriminant validity. Values are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Inter-correlation matrix.

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Aff_Att 0.572        
2. Instr_Att −0.333 0.841      
3. Norms −0.311 0.189 0.822    
4. Perceived control −0.473 0.347 0.451 0.666  
5. CdmUse Intention −0.413 0.306 0.513 0.724 0.858

Off diagonal values in Table 5 show correlations between the pairs of latent variables. As shown in the table correlations range from 0.189 to 0.724, suggesting that collinearity is not an issue in this model since all values are below 0.85. All correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Diagonal elements (in bold) show the square root of the AVE for a given construct. Discriminant validity was measured by comparing these values with the inter-construct correlations. If the off-diagonal elements are less than the square-root of the AVE in the corresponding rows and columns then discriminant validity is achieved (Fornell, Tellis, & Zinkhan, 1982). As can be seen in the above-mentioned table, all inter-construct correlations are less than the square root of the AVE, except for perceived control construct. Thus more research into items for the perceived control construct may be required. Overall, these results confirm the existence of discriminant validity of the measurement used in this study.

Measurement model fit was analysed using a number of fit indices. These included the minimum fit function (χ2), the relative chi-square (χ2 /df) with a value between 2 and 5 desirable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Additionally, the goodness of fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) were reported. Kline (2011, p. 207) defined the GFI as ‘an absolute fit index that estimates the proportion of covariance in the sample data matrix explained by the model’. Tabachnick and Fidell (2014) further state that the GFI is analogous to the R2 in regression models. The RMSEA is an absolute fit index which assesses how far a hypothesised model is from a perfect model (Xia & Yang, 2019). Lastly, the CFI is a comparative fit index which compares the fit of a hypothesised model with that of a model with the worst fit. Values greater than 0.90 for the GFI and CFI indicated acceptable fit while a value less than 0.08 was acceptable for the RMSEA. Based on the evidence of the model fit indices (χ2 = 671.47, χ2 /df = 3.75, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.059 [0.054, 0.064]) and confirmation of convergent and discriminant validity, the measurement model was acceptable. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis supported further use of the measurement model as part of the structural model.

Structural equation model and test of hypotheses

There was a good fit for the structural model (χ2 = 616.84, χ2 /df = 3.86, GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.060 [0.055, 0.065]). The results in Figure 3 and Table 6 provide support for two out of the four hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 which posited a positive association between instrumental attitude and condom use intention and a negative association between affective attitude and condom use intention, respectively were partly supported. While the two hypotheses were statistically not significant at the 5% level, the p-values for both were close to the 10% level of significance. More importantly, the direction of the claim in both hypotheses was supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 3 and 4, results showed that both Norms (β = 0.226) and Perceived control (β = 0.582) had a positive and significant influence on intention to use condoms. Both preceding predictors were significant at the 0.001 level (p < 0.001). Figure 3 presents all the standardised coefficients and correlations between the exogenous variables perceived control, norms, instr_att and aff_att and the endogenous variable, cdmuse intention in the full structural model.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Full structural model.

Table 6.

Summarised results from structural model analysis (standard errors in brackets; n = 794).

Proposed hypothesis statement Hypothesis Unstandardised coefficient Standardised coefficient One tailed p-value Decision
CdmUse_Intention ← Aff_Att H1 −0.068
(0.057)
−0.053 0.1145 Partially supported
CdmUse_Intention ← Instr_Att H2 0.049
(0.038)
0.044 0.1005 Partially supported
CdmUse_Intention ← Norms H3 0.211
(0.033)
0.226 <0.001 Supported
CdmUse_Intention ← Perceived_control H4 0.676
(0.053)
0.582 <0.001 Supported

Results from the structural model in Figure 3 showed that condom use intention had 57% of its total variance explained the foregoing four exogenous constructs in the model.

Results pertaining to the hypothesis tests are summarised in Table 6.

Bootstrapping using 1000 samples was carried out to reconfirm the above results. Table 7 below shows the bootstrapping results.

Table 7.

Bootstrap results (n = 794, B = 1000).

Parameter estimate Mean of estimates S.E. Bias p 95% BC Confidence Interval
CdmUse_Intention ← Aff_Att −.068 .068 .000 .128 (−.219, .058)
CdmUse_Intention ← Instr_Att .050 .040 .002 .095 (−.0.027, .134)
CdmUse_Intention ← Norms .209 .045 −.002 <0.001 (.133, .314)
CdmUse_Intention ← Perceived_control .675 .072 .001 <0.001 (.546, .832)

A comparison of the unstandardised parameter estimates shown in Tables 6 and 7 revealed minor variations in the values obtained. Estimates obtained using bootstrapping, except the Aff_Att coefficient (B = 0.068) were slightly different from those in the ML estimation approach. Standard errors obtained after performing bootstrapping were slightly larger than those obtained under the ML estimation approach. Inspection of the p-values however showed similar significant results for Norms and Perceived_control and non-significant results for Aff_Att. Instr_Att however showed a significant result at the 10% level of significance. Despite the slight variations, both approaches provided the same results. Thus, the bootstrap results confirmed the stability of the results obtained using the ML estimation approach.

Discussion

Constructs in the structural equation model explained 57% of the variance in condom use intention. This finding is consistent with other studies (Boer & Tshilidzi-Mashamba, 2007; Eggers et al., 2016; Fazekas, Senn, & Ledgerwood, 2001; Giles, Liddell, & Bydawell, 2005) conducted in African countries, which also revealed subjective norms and perceived behavioural control to be significant predictors of intention to use condoms. The total variance in intention to use condoms explained in these other studies ranged between 22% and 67%.

Normative beliefs (Norms) were a significant predictor of condom use intention among Batswana in-school adolescents. Results in this study indicated that normative beliefs have a positive and significant effect on condom use intention. This led to the acceptance of the third hypothesis (H3). The finding of this study is supported by previous studies (Guo et al., 2014; Sacolo et al., 2013) but contrary to Teye-Kwadjo et al. (2017a, 2017b) and Jemmott III et al. (2007) who found that normative beliefs were not statistically significantly associated with condom use intention.

Perceived control, on the other hand, was the strongest predictor of condom use intention. Results revealed that perceived control has a positive and significant effect on condom use intention. Thus the fourth and final hypothesis (H4) was accepted. This finding is consistent with results from studies carried out among some high school youths in South Africa (Jemmott et al., 2007), in-school youth in Swaziland (Sacolo et al., 2013), 9th – 12th grade Ghanaian senior high school learners aged 14–20 years (Teye-Kwadjo et al., 2017a) and Chinese college students (Guo et al., 2014). However, the finding was in contrast to Albarracín et al. (2001)’s meta-analysis results of 96 studies mostly conducted in Europe and United States. The said study established that attitude was the best predictor of condom use intention followed by perceived control. Additionally, the results obtained in this study were inconsistent with Bennett and Bozionelos (2000), whose study discovered that perceived control of condom use had no effect on condom use intention.

Limitations of the study

Firstly, secondary data was used in this study. The researchers were therefore limited to working with the available variables in building the model. Secondly, self-reports were used to measure behavioural variables. Due the sensitivity of the sexual behaviour as well as social desirability concerns, there is a risk that participants may have either under-reported or over-reported their behaviour. It is well documented in literature that youth, particularly females, regularly under-report sexual behaviour whereas males occasionally over-report it (Beguy, Kabiru, Ndera, & Ngeware, 2009; Doyle, Mavadzenge, Plummer, & Ross, 2012; Marston & King, 2006; Plummer & Wight, 2011). While bias may be present in self-report measures, specifically when private sexual information is requested, an emergent body of research has revealed that the use of self-report data in sexual behaviour research presents no major problems (DiClemente, Swartzendruber, & Brown, 2013; Goldberg, Haydon, Herring, & Halpern, 2014; Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003). Notwithstanding this, there is a possibility that the self-report data may have had some influence on the analysis.

Practical implications

An important implication of this study derives from the finding on the TPB elements that contribute significantly to explaining in-school adolescents’ condom use intentions. Results from this study suggest that effective interventions for promoting condom use should aim at changing normative and perceived behavioural control beliefs over condom use. Given that the content of the beliefs may vary across cultures (Kok & Ruiter, 2014), designers of behavioural intervention programmes and policy makers need to also take the context of the targeted populations into account thereby leading to development of culturally appropriate interventions.

Suggestions for future research

On the basis of the finding on the significant predictors of condom use intention made by this study, there is need for constructs and variables well-matched to the Botswana context to be further developed and validated for future studies. Furthermore, the TPB could be used as a framework to determine the predictors of intention to use condoms among Batswana in-school adolescents. It is recommended that any HIV education programmes or interventions targeted at the adolescents should increase the intention to use condoms through promoting positive instrumental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control of condom use. Additionally, an investigation of mediating and/or moderating variables in the case of Batswana adolescents could be yet another avenue of research to be pursued. Developing separate models based on gender could also be a worthwhile research pursuit.

Conclusion

Many studies have been conducted using the TPB in western countries, but few studies that apply the TPB to predict the intention to use condoms in Sub-Saharan Africa, specifically among Batswana adolescent populations, have been carried out. Although Batswana culture, history, and language differ from those in western countries, the study results indicated that the TPB constructs, except for both affective and instrumental attitude were predictive of intention to use condoms among Batswana in-school adolescents. This study therefore extended the application of the TPB to Batswana in-school adolescents in order to identify the predictors that determined the intention to use condoms in this population.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the school adolescents who contributed to the study as well as the entire team that was involved in this research. We are also grateful to the Principal Investigator of the UBARP for permission to use the data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  1. Agyei, W. K. A., & Abrefa-Gyan, T. (2016). Risky sexual behaviour and condom use among youth in Botswana. Journal of Human Ecology, 55(3), 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  2. Airhihenbuwa, C. O., & Obregon, R. (2000). A critical assessment of theories/models used in health communication for HIV/AIDS. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 101–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142–161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbig, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arifin, W. N. (2015). The graphical assessment of multivariate normality using SPSS. Education in Medicine Journal, 7(2), 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  6. Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 116–128. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beguy, J. A., Kabiru, C. W., Ndera, E. N., & Ngeware, M. W. (2009). Inconsistencies in self-reporting of sexual activity among young people in Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(6), 595–601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennett, P., & Bozionelos, G. (2000). The theory of planned behaviour as predictor of condom use: A narrative review. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 5(3), 307–326. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bentler, P. M. (1988). Causal modeling via structural equation systems. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 317–335). Boston, MA: Springer.
  11. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modelling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boer, H., & Tshilidzi-Mashamba, M. (2007). Gender power imbalance and differential psychosocial correlates of intended condom use among male and female adolescents from Venda, South Africa. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 51–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bryan, A., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (2002). Tests of the mediational role of preparatory safer sexual behaviour in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology, 21(1), 71–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bryan, A., Kagee, A., & Broaddus, M. R. (2006). Condom use among South African adolescents: Developing and testing theoretical models of intentions and behaviour. AIDS and Behaviour, 10(4), 387–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Burdenski, T. (2000). Evaluating univariate, bivariate, and multivariate normality using graphical and statistical procedures. Multivariate Linear Regression Viewpoints, 26(2), 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  16. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). East Sussex: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  17. Campbell, C., & Murray, M. (2004). Community health psychology: Promoting analysis and action for social change. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(2), 187–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Campbell, C., Nair, Y., & Maimane, S. (2007). Building contexts that support effective community responses to HIV/AIDS: A South African case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 347–363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Carmack, C. C., & Lewis-Moss, R. K. (2009). Examining the theory of planned behaviour applied to condom use: The effect-indicator vs. Causal-indicator models. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(6), 659–676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cha, E. S., Doswell, W. M., Kim, K. H., Charron-Prochownik, D., & Patrick, T. E. (2007). Evaluating the theory of planned behaviour to explain intention to engage in premarital sex amongst Korean college students: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(7), 1147–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–64. [Google Scholar]
  23. DiClemente, R. J., Swartzendruber, A. L., & Brown, J. L. (2013). Improving the validity of self-reported sexual behaviour: No easy answers. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 40, 111–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Doyle, A. M., Mavadzenge, S. N., Plummer, S. L., & Ross, D. A. (2012). The sexual behaviour of adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: Patters and trends from national surveys. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 17(7), 796–807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ebrahim, N. B., Davis, S., & Tomaka, J. (2017). Psychosocial determinants of intention to use condoms among Somali and Ethiopian immigrants in the U.S. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(5), 611–617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Eggers, S. M., Aarø, L. E., Bos, A. E., Mathews, C., Kaaya, S. F., Onya, H., & de Vries, H. (2016). Socio-cognitive predictors of condom use and intentions among adolescents in three sub-Saharan sites. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(2), 353–365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guildford Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fazekas, A., Senn, C. Y., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2001). Predictors of intention to use condoms among university women: An application and extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 33(2), 103–117. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fishbein, M. (2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care, 12(3), 273–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fornell, C., Tellis, G. J., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1982). Validity assessment: A structural equations approach using partial least squares. In Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference (pp. 1–5). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
  32. Gallagher, D., Ting, L., & Palmer, A. (2008). A journey into the unknown; taking the fear out of structural equation modelling with AMOS for the first-time user. The Marketing Review, 8(3), 255–275. [Google Scholar]
  33. Garson, D. G. (2015). Structural equation modelling. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gaskin, J. (2012). Data screening. Gaskination’s StatWiki.
  35. Giles, M., Liddell, C., & Bydawell, M. (2005). Condom use in African adolescents: The role of individual and group factors. AIDS Care, 17(6), 729–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldberg, S. K., Haydon, A. A., Herring, A. H., & Halpern, C. T. (2014). Longitudinal consistency in self-reported age of first vaginal intercourse among young adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 97–106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Guo, R., Mcaleese, W. J., Appleby, K. M., Guo, J., Zhang, W., Huang, Y., & Peterson, T. (2014). Predictors of intention to use condoms among Chinese college students. Journal of Community Health, 39, 712–718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014a). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed., Pearson new international edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  39. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014b). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  40. Heeler, R. M., & Ray, M. L. (1972). Measure validation in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 361–370. [Google Scholar]
  41. Idele, P., Gillespie, A., Porth, T., Suzuki, C., Mahy, M., Kasedde, S., & Luo, C. (2014). Epidemiology of HIV and AIDS among adolescents: Current status, inequities, and data gaps. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 66, S144–S153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Janner, M., Wolitski, R., Corby, N., & Fishbein, M. (1998). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict intention to use condoms among female sex workers. Psychological Health Review, 13, 187–205. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jemmott III, J. B. (2012). The reasoned action approach in HIV risk-reduction strategies for adolescents. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 150–172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jemmott III, J. B., Heeren, G. A., Ngwane, Z., Hewitt, N., Jemmott, L. S., Shell, R., & O’Leary, A. (2007). Theory of planned behaviour predictors of intention to use condoms among Xhosa adolescents in South Africa. AIDS Care, 19(5), 677–684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) . (2014). The Gap report. Geneva: UNAIDS. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jöreskog, K. G. (1967). Some contributions to Maximum Likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32(4), 443–482. [Google Scholar]
  47. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1973). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kang, H. (2013). The prevention and handling of missing data. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 64(5), 402–406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kapogiannis, B. G., Legins, K. E., Chandan, U., & Lee, S. (2014). Evidence-based programming for adolescent HIV prevention and care: Operational research to inform best practices. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 66, S228–S235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Katikiro, E., & Njau, B. (2012). Motivating factors and psychosocial barriers to condom use among out-of-school youths in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A cross sectional survey using the health belief model. Isrn Aids, 2012, 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kok, G., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2014). Who has the authority to change a theory? Everyone! A commentary on head and noar. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 61–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lei, P. W., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modelling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  54. Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  55. Macalino, G. E., Sachdev, D. D., Rich, J. D., Becker, C., Tan, L. J., Beletsky, L., … Burris, S. (2009). A national physician survey on prescribing syringes as an HIV prevention measure. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 4, 13. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-4-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Maharaj, P., & Cleland, J. (2005). Risk perception and condom use among married or cohabiting couples in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. International Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 24–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Marston, C., & King, E. (2006). Factors that shape young people’s sexual behaviour: A systematic review. The Lancet, 368, 1581–1586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mausbach, B. T., Semple, S. J., Strathdee, S. A., & Patterson, T. L. (2009). Predictors of safer sex intentions and protected sex among heterosexual HIV-negative methamphetamine users: An expanded model of the theory of planned behaviour. AIDS Care, 21(1), 17–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Molla, M., Nordrehaug Åstrøm, A., & Brehane, Y. (2007). Applicability of the theory of planned behaviour to intended and self-reported condom use in a rural Ethiopian population. AIDS Care, 19(3), 425–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Muñoz-Silva, A., Sánchez-García, M., Martins, A., & Nunes, C. (2009). Gender differences in HIV-related sexual behaviour among college students from Spain and Portugal. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 485–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ochieng, M. A., Kakai, R., & Abok, K. (2011). Knowledge, attitude and practice of condom use among secondary school students in Kisumu district, Nyanza province. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 3(1), 32–36. [Google Scholar]
  62. Okonofua, F. (2013). Documenting new HIV/AIDS research and interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Reproductive Health (Special edition on HIV/AIDS), 17(4), 9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Plummer, M. L., & Wight, D. (2011). Young people’s lives and sexual relationships in rural Africa: Findings from a large qualitative study in Tanzania. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ramzan, S., Zahid, F. M., & Ramzan, S. (2013). Evaluating multivariate normality: A graphical approach. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 13(2), 254–263. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rannie, K., & Craig, D. M. (1997). Adolescent females’ attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and intentions to use latex condoms. Public Health Nursing, 14(1), 51–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Romero, L. M., Galbraith, J. S., Wilson-Williams, L., & Gloppen, K. M. (2011). HIV prevention among African American youth: How well have evidence-based interventions addressed key theoretical constructs? AIDS and Behaviour, 15(5), 976–991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sacolo, H. N., Chung, M.-H., Chu, H., Liao, Y.-M., Chen, C.-H., et al. (2013). High risk sexual behaviours among the In-school youth in Swaziland: A structural equation modelling approach. PLos, 8(7), e67289. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schaalma, H., Aarø, L. E., Flisher, A. J., Mathews, C., Kaaya, S., Onya, H., & Klepp, K. I. (2009). Correlates of intention to use condoms among Sub-Saharan African youth: The applicability of the theory of planned behaviour. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(2_suppl), 87–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Schroder, K. E. E., Carey, M. P., & Vanable, P. A. (2003). Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behaviour: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 26(2), 104–123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modelling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 148–169. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., & Orbell, S. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 90–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Song, X. Y., Lee, S. Y., & Hser, Y. I. (2008). A two-level structural equation model approach for analyzing multivariate longitudinal responses. Statistics in Medicine, 27(16), 3017–3041. doi: 10.1002/sim.3266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. Harlow: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  76. Taylor, M., Jinabhai, C., Dlamini, S., Sathiparsad, R., Eggers, M. S., & De Vries, H. (2014). Effects of a teenage pregnancy prevention program in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Health Care for Women International, 35(7–9), 845–858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Teye-Kwadjo, E., Kagee, A., & Swart, H. (2017a). Determinants of condom use among heterosexual young men and women in southeastern Ghana: A mediation analysis. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(4), 291–305. [Google Scholar]
  78. Teye-Kwadjo, E., Kagee, A., & Swart, H. (2017b). Predicting the intention to use condoms and actual condom use behaviour: A three-wave longitudinal study in Ghana. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 81–105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Thompson, B. (2003). Guidelines for authors reporting score reliability estimates. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues (pp. 91–102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  80. UNAIDS . (2012). Botswana 2012 Global AIDS response report. http://www.bw.undp.org/content/botswana/en/home/library/hiv_aids/botswana-2012-global-aids-response-report.html.
  81. Van Rossem, R., & Meekers, D. (2011). Perceived social approval and condom use with casual partners among youth in urban Cameroon. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 632. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modelling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wise, D., Goggin, K. J., Gerkovich, M. M., Metcalf, K. A., & Kennedy, S. L. (2006). Predicting intentions to use condoms using gender, sexual experience, and the theory of planned behaviour. American Journal of Health Education, 37(4), 210–218. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wolitski, R. J., & Zhang, J. (2007). Understanding and motivating condom use among at-risk and HIV-seropositive persons: A review and demonstration of the applicability of the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. In Ajzen I., Albarracín D., & Hornik R. (Eds.), Prediction and change of health behaviour: Applying the reasoned action approach (pp. 173–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  85. Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Yung, Y.-F., & Bentler, P. M. (1996). Bootstrapping techniques in analysis of mean and covariance structures. In Marcoulides G. A., & Schumacker R. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 195–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  87. Zainudin, A. (2012). A handbook on SEM: Structural equation modelling using amos graphics (4th ed.). Kelantan: University Technology MARA Press. [Google Scholar]
  88. Zhang, G., & Little, R. J. (2009). Extensions of the penalized spline of propensity Prediction method of imputation. Biometrics, 65, 911–918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from SAHARA J : Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES