Table 3.

Measures of reproductive empowerment and related constructs

Measure	Description	Number of Items (Number and Names of Subscales)	Response Options	Example Item	Internal Consistency*	Studies	Reference for Original Measure
Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES)	Asses self-efficacy to use condoms and negotiate condom use with partners	Original: 14 (4: Assertiveness, Partner’s Disapproval, Mechanics, Intoxicants) Gesselman, et al. abbreviated version: 4, unidimensional Sousa, et al. adaptation for Brazilian context: 14 (3: Communication, Consistent Use, Correct Use) Santos, et al. adaptation for Brazilian context: 15 (NR)	Five-point Likert-type	“If I were unsure of my partner’s feelings about using condoms, I would not suggest using one.”	Original scale: Excellent for overall scale (Thomas, et al.: α = 0.90); excellent to good for each subscale (Asante: α = 0.81–0.90) Adaptations for Brazilian context: Good (Santos, et al.: α = 0.86; Sousa, et al: α = 0.85)	Original version: Thomas et al.42; Davis51; Asante et al.28. Adaptations for Brazilian context: Santos, et al.37; Sousa, et al.40 Abbreviated version: Gesselman, et al.33	59
Decisional Conflict Scale	Assesses awareness of available options and perceived ability to make an informed choice	16 (5: Informed Decision, Uncertainty, Effective Decision, Values Clarity, Support)	Five-point Likert-type	“I am clear about which benefits matter most to me.”	NR	Dehlendorf, et al.24	58
Condom Self-Efficacy	Assess confidence in using condoms, similar to CUSES Mechanics and Assertiveness subscales	15	Five-point Likert-type	NR	Good (α = 0.84)	Tsay, et al.44	NA
Partner Risk Reduction Self-Efficacy	Assess perceived ability to change sex behaviour within relationship	4	Five-point Likert-type	“Would you be able to avoid sex any time you didn’t want it?”	Acceptable (α = 0.73)	Chirinda, et al.30	60
Relationship Control	Assess perceived control in relationship	4	Four-point Likert-type	“Your partner has more control than you do in important decisions that affect your relationship.”	Good (α = 0.81)	Chirinda, et al.30	61
HIV Attitudes Scale, condom use self-efficacy subscale	Assess confidence to negotiate and use condoms	Three-item subscale	Four-point Likert-type response	“If my partner would want to have sex without a condom, I would try to convince her/him to use it.”	Acceptable (α =  0.76)	Espada, et al.21	62
Minnesota Student Survey, self-esteem subscale	Assess self-esteem	Four-item subscale	Four-point Likert-type	“I usually feel good about myself.”	Good (α = 0.89)	Ghobadzadeh, et al.22	NA
Partner Communication Self-Efficacy	Assess perceived difficulty of talking with sexual partner about condom use and other risk behaviours	6	Five-point Likert-type	“How hard is it for you to refuse to have sex if he won’t wear a condom?”	Good (α = 0.82)	Ritchwood, et al.36	63
General Self-Efficacy Scale	Assess general self-efficacy among adolescents	10	10-point Likert-type	“I am confident that I could handle unexpected events effectively.”	Excellent (α = 0.90)	Escribano, et al.20	64
Confidence in Safer Sex Scale (Adapted)	Assess confidence to successfully negotiate condom use with a partner	5	Five-point Likert-type	“How sure are you that you would use condoms when your partner gets annoyed about using condoms?”	NR	Shih, et al.38	65
Sexual Communication Self-efficacy (adapted and abbreviated)	Assess confidence in discussing safer sex, contraception, and negotiating condom use with partner	5	Eight-point Likert-type	“I can easily initiate and conduct a conversation about safer sex with my boyfriend.”	Questionable (α = 0.68)	Bui, et al.47	NA
Contraceptive Self-Efficacy	Assess confidence in preventing pregnancy and talking to partner about contraception	8	NR	NR	Acceptable (α = 0.71)	Nelson, et al.49	NA, influenced by existing measure66

*Excellent: α ≥ 0.9, Good: 0.8 ≤ α < 0.9; Acceptable: 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8; Questionable: 0.6 ≤ α < 0.7.