Journal of Counseling Psychology

Development and Evaluation of a New Short Form of the

Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI-30)
Ronald F. Levant, Ryon McDermott, Mike C. Parent, Nuha Alshabani, James R. Mahalik, and Joseph
H. Hammer
Online First Publication, February 3, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414

CITATION
Levant, R. F., McDermott, R., Parent, M. C., Alshabani, N., Mahalik, J. R., & Hammer, J. H. (2020,
February 3). Development and Evaluation of a New Short Form of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory (CMNI-30). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414
 Journal of Counseling Psychology
© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000
ISSN: 0022-0167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414

Development and Evaluation of a New Short Form of the Conformity to

Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI-30)
Ronald F. Levant Ryon McDermott
University of Akron University of South Alabama

Mike C. Parent Nuha Alshabani

University of Texas at Austin University of Akron
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

James R. Mahalik Joseph H. Hammer

Boston College University of Kentucky

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) has been an important tool in researching
masculinity. With the original measure at 94 items (Mahalik et al., 2003), there have been several
abbreviated forms developed from 11 to 55 items. However, in confirmatory factor analyses (CFA’s)
testing 13 common factors, bifactor, hierarchical, and unidimensional models, only 4 models demon-
strated adequate fit to the data, and most of these were for the still quite long 46-item version. As a result,
there was no psychometrically strong truly short form of the CMNI. In the present study, data from 1561
community and university men were used to develop a short form. First an exploratory factor analysis
using a portion of the data was conducted, which resulted in a 10-subscale dimensionality, followed by
CFA estimating a common factors model. The results of the CFA were used to create two candidate
models for a 30-item short form of the CMNI, based on Classical test theory (CTT) and optimized CTT.
The best-fitting candidate model for the CMNI-30 was CTT. Next, the fit of the 29, 46, and 94 item
models were compared to the 30-item version, which had the superior fit. Then, measurement invariance
between White men and men of color was assessed, choosing this comparison because hegemonic
masculinity is theorized to marginalize men of color. Evidence was found for full configural and metric,
and partial scalar and residuals invariance. Finally, significant relationships between CMNI-30 scores
and indicators of depression and anxiety provides preliminary concurrent evidence for its validity.

Public Significance Statement

This study provides a meaningfully shorter version of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory
that preserves the variability of the original measure, confirms that the measure is best used in
examinations of specific masculinity norms, and offers evidence that White men and men of color
understand the scale scores in the same way. In addition, this study provides preliminary validity
evidence for the short form.

Keywords: Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory, confirmatory factor analysis, measurement

invariance/equivalence, validity

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414.supp

Over the last several decades, counseling psychologists have ditional masculinity ideology and gender role conflict (e.g., Le-
made great strides in the development of measures assessing vant, Hall, & Rankin, 2013; Mahalik et al., 2003; O’Neill, 2008).
conformity to masculine norms and the related constructs of tra- Studies using these measures have brought important insights to

mental and Educational Psychology, Boston College; X Joseph H.

X Ronald F. Levant, Department of Psychology, Buchtel College of
Arts and Sciences, University of Akron; X Ryon McDermott, Coun-
seling and Instructional Sciences, University of South Alabama; Mike
C. Parent, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas
at Austin; X Nuha Alshabani, Department of Psychology, University
of Akron; X James R. Mahalik, Department of Counseling, Develop-
Hammer, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychol-
ogy, University of Kentucky.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald F.
Levant, Department of Psychology, Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences,
University of Akron, 302 Buchtel Mall, Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail:
levant@uakron.edu

1
 2 LEVANT ET AL.
the field regarding the development of client presenting issues,
barriers to help-seeking, and factors affecting psychological treat-
ment. The present article focuses on the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003) and undertakes a
major refinement to develop a new short form of the CMNI that
captures most of the dimensions of the original 94-item version
with clarified wording and strong psychometric properties.
Conformity to masculine norms, or the degree to which indi-
viduals endorse personally enacting the requirements of masculine
norms, is an important conceptual framework for investigating
masculinity and its correlates. Previous research has found that
conformity to masculine norms can be either adaptive or maladap-
tive depending on the subscale and the focal outcome (Gerdes &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Levant, 2018; Hammer & Good, 2010; Levant, Wimer, & Wil-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
liams, 2011; Owen, 2011; Parent & Moradi, 2011; Wong, Ho,
Wang, & Miller, 2017). For example, in a meta-analysis of 78
samples (Wong et al., 2017), conformity to masculine norms was
correlated with maladaptive mental health outcomes and psycho-
logical help-seeking attitudes and behaviors. The authors also
identified three subscales—playboy, power over women, and self-
reliance—that were consistently and robustly related to maladap-
tive mental health outcomes. In another recent study, Gerdes and
Levant (2018) demonstrated that focusing on the CMNI-94 total
score obscured the complex relationships between conforming to
specific masculine norms and their adaptive or maladaptive out-
comes, which were broader than the mental health outcomes
investigated by Wong et al. (2017). Whereas the total score was
overwhelmingly associated with maladaptive outcomes, 30% of
the findings of the subscales reflected healthy outcomes. Further-
more, subscales differed in their associated outcomes. The sub-
scale primacy of work was predominantly correlated with healthy
outcomes, such as motivation and health promotion, and four
others had a nearly equal balance of healthy and harmful outcomes
(pursuit of status, risk-taking, winning, and heterosexual self-
presentation). However, six subscales were mostly associated with
harmful outcomes, three of which overlapped with Wong et al.’s
(2017) problematic scales (Emotional Control, Violence, Power
over Women, Dominance, Playboy, and Self-Reliance; Gerdes &
Levant, 2018). Maladaptive correlates of masculinity scales have
been theorized to be due to those men who score in the very high
end of the scales (Levant & Pryor, in press), but at present there is
very little in the way of theory that would explain why some
subscales are more often associated with maladaptive outcomes
and others with adaptive ones, which is a task for future research.
But based on the empirical evidence, masculinity norm conformity
is a multifaceted construct that is useful in addressing social,
intrapersonal, and health outcomes for men (Mahalik et al., 2003;
Parent & Moradi, 2011). Counseling psychologists may benefit
from utilizing information regarding clients’ conformity to mas-
culine norms in terms of help-seeking behavior, social functioning,
strengths, and areas of distress.
Assessing Masculine Norm Conformity
Mahalik et al. (2003) developed the CMNI “to be able to
examine the great variability in how men enact masculinity, as
well as understand the causes of that variability and the resultant
benefits and costs to the individual and others” (p. 4). Their focus
was on the masculine norms reflected in White, cisgender, and
heterosexual men because “gender role norms from the most
dominant or powerful group in a society affect the experiences of
persons in that group, as well as persons in all other groups” (p. 5).
The original 94-item measure assessed an individual’s level of
conformity to 11 masculine norms: winning (focus on success and
winning competitive contests), emotional control (endorsing con-
trol of emotional expression); primacy of work (endorsing work as
a primary focus of life), risk-taking (voluntary exposure to risky
situations), violence (endorse violence as acceptable response to
some situations), heterosexual self-presentation (the importance of
not appearing to be gay to others), playboy (endorsing casual
sexual activity), self-reliance (reluctance to seek help but rather
rely on oneself), power over women (general control of women),
dominance (desire to be in charge and have control over situa-
tions), and pursuit of status (wanting to be seen as an important
person; Mahalik et al., 2003). These original 11 norms were
derived from a literature review and focus groups regarding mas-
culine norms for men in the United States (Mahalik et al., 2003).
Data from a pool of 144 items were subjected to an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) using principle axis factoring and oblimin
rotation to develop the measure, but a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was not conducted at the time. Although the CMNI has
been highly used in research, efforts have been made to shorten the
original 94-item scale, resulting in the development of five abbre-
viations of the CMNI: CMNI-55 (Owen, 2011), CMNI-46 (Parent
& Moradi, 2009), CMNI-29 (Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014), CMNI-22
(Owen, 2011), and CMNI-11 (Mahalik, Burns, & Syzdek, 2007).
The CMNI-55 was created to reduce the length of the original
measure but keep the full dimensional structure of the original
94-item measure. This abbreviation used classical test theory
(CTT) by selecting the five highest loading items for the original
11 factors (Owen, 2011). Three models were tested in the CFAs of
the CMNI-55: a correlated subscales (common factors) model, an
uncorrelated subscales model, and a hierarchical model. None fit
the data at acceptable levels (Owen, 2011).
The CMNI-46 was derived by conducting a CFA on the original
94-item CMNI, which resulted in a nine-factor measure. Items that
had a factor loading less than .60 were deleted. This nine-factor
model dropped the dominance and pursuit of status subscales and
kept the rest of the original factors (Parent & Moradi, 2009). The
abbreviated scale development used a majority White sample
(59%) but included 23% Asian American participants.
The CMNI-29 was developed by Hsu and Iwamoto (2014) with
a sample of White and Asian men. They first conducted two CFAs
on the CMNI-46, both of which resulted in poor fit. They then
conducted two EFAs and a CFA using the same data set, a flawed
practice which Worthington and Whittaker (2006) recommended
against (and which tends to inflate fit statistics), yielding two
8-factor scales and dropping the primacy of work factor. The first
scale had 35 items and demonstrated poor fit to the data, and the
second scale had 29 items version and demonstrated acceptable fit.
The CMNI-22 was developed using CTT, selecting the two
highest loading of the original 11 factors from the 94-item CMNI
(Owen, 2011). The 22-item measure reduces the CMNI to a
unidimensional scale, with poor fit statistics. Although this version
of the scale is notably shorter, its unidimensionality deviates from
the original purpose of the CMNI, which was to assess the multiple
dimensions of conformity to masculine norm (Mahalik et al.,
2003). Finally, an 11-item version was created using CTT by
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30 3

selecting the highest loading item on each of the 11 subscales
(Mahalik et al., 2007). No CFA results are reported for this
version.
Assessment of the Variance Composition of the CMNI
The variance composition of most versions of the CMNI has
been investigated. Correlated (or common) factors, bifactor, hier-
archical (or second-order), and unidimensional models have been
estimated and compared (Hammer, Heath, & Vogel, 2018; Heath,
Brenner, Vogel, Lannin, & Strass, 2017; Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014;
Levant, Hall, Weigold, & McCurdy, 2015; Mahalik et al., 2007;
Owen, 2011; Parent & Moradi, 2009). In the unidimensional
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
factors model, is the preferred way to measure conformity to
masculine norms. It is not clear theoretically why conformity to
masculine norms might be best modeled as completely multidi-
mensional without some unifying or overarching factor, especially
since a related measure, the Male Role Norms Inventory–Short
Form (MRNI-SF) has been almost always been modeled as a
bifactor structure, with a general traditional masculinity ideology
factor and seven group factors corresponding to the subscales
(McDermott et al., 2017). It may have something to do with the
way that beliefs are measured as compared with self-concept, but
this is a task for future research. On the other hand, the multidi-
mensional measure has considerable clinical utility for practitio-
ners, largely because certain subscales have been associated with

model, items load only onto a general conformity to masculine maladaptive outcomes, and others with adaptive ones, as discussed
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

norms (CMN) factor. In the correlated factors model, items load
only onto their group factors (i.e., subscales). In the bifactor
model, items load both onto their group factors and a general CMN
factor; the general CMN factor is uncorrelated with (orthogonal to)
the specific factors, as they are to each other. In the second order
model, items load onto their respective first order factor (i.e., the
subscales), which in turn load onto the second-order factor. The fit
statistics for all CMNI versions (except the 11-item, which has not
been provided) are presented in Table 1. Only the common factors
model of the 46 and 29, and the bifactor model of the 46 have at
times demonstrated acceptable fit.
Levant et al. (2015) found that the bifactor model provided
better fit than both the hierarchical and correlated factors models.
However, looking at explained common variance, only 22% of
variance was explained by the general CMN factor whereas 78%
of variance was explained by the group factors. Furthermore,
Heath et al. (2017) found that bifactor model had inadequate fit to
the data. Moreover, Hammer et al. (2018) used CFA and ancillary
bifactor indices in two samples of community and college men to
assess how well the CMNI-46 measured a general CMN factor and
found that the general factor explained only 18% to 27% of item
variance, indicating that the CMNI-46 can measure conformity to
specific masculine norms but not overall CMN. These results
indicate that a multidimensional measure, based on the correlated
above (Owen, 2011).
Rationale for the Present Study
As noted in the preceding text, the present study developed a new
short form of the CMNI that captures most of the dimensions of the
original 94-item version with clarified wording and strong psycho-
metric properties. The chief advantage of a short form is that it
reduces participant fatigue. There are some potential drawbacks to a
short form, such as a possible loss of bandwidth in measuring each
subscale and reduced reliability. On the other hand, developing a new
form with strong psychometric properties is clearly indicated. First,
societal masculine norms have continued to change in the nearly 20
years since the development of the inventory. Second, four models
(with 94, 55, 22, and 11 items) have never demonstrated good fit to
the data on CFA, and thus do not have adequate psychometric
properties. Only the models with 29 and 46 items have at times
demonstrated adequate fit. Second, the 46-item model is still quite
long, and it is an empirical question as to whether it has better fit than
our 30-item model. Although it is true that the 29-item CMNI ad-
vanced the field by providing an abbreviated form, there are ways that
it falls short, making room for the 30-item model. First, it was
developed using the nonrecommended practice of conducting the
EFA and CFA with the same sample (cf. DeVellis, 2017; Worthing-

Table 1
Model Fit Statistics and Comparisons of CMNI Models

RMSEA estimate,
CMNI Model, Source ␹2(df), p CFI, TLI [90% CI] SRMR

94-item CF, Parent & Moradi, 2009 7089.3 (4,222), p ⬍ .001 .71 .055 [.052, .057] .077
46-item CF, Parent & Moradi, 2009 1414.3 (953), p ⬍ .001 .90 .046 [.041, .051] .059
46-item CF, Levant, Hall, Weigold, & McCurdy, 2015 1728.20 (953), p ⬍ .001 .900, 891 .043 [.040, .046] .060
46-item H, Levant et al., 2015 1901.20 (980), p ⬍ .001 .881, .875 .046 [.043, .049] .081
46-item BF, Levant et al., 2015 1596.08 (942), p ⬍ .001 .916, .918 .039 [.036, .043] .074
46-item CF, Hammer, Heath, & Vogel, 2018 2140.08 (953), p ⬍ .001 .935, .929 .039 [.037, .041] .049
46-item BF, Hammer et al., 2018 1657.20 (943), p ⬍ .001 .931, .924 .035 [.032, .037] .062
46-item BF, Heath, Brenner, Vogel, Lannin, & Strass, 2017 1652.27 (943), p ⬍ .001 .86 .05 [.05, .06] .11
46-item CF, Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014 3768.81 (909), p ⬍ .001 .82 .05 [.05, .06] .07
55-item CF, Owen, 2011 2805.70 (1,485), p ⬍ .001 .88 .045 .06
55-item H, Owen, 2011 3192.50 (1,419), p ⬍ .001 .85 .049 .08
29-item CF, Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014 965.26 (893), p ⬍ .001 .93 .040 [.041, .048] .04
22-item Uni, Owen, 2011 .26 .13 [.12, .14] .13
Note. CMNI ⫽ Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; TLI ⫽ Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error
of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean square residual; CF ⫽ common factors model; H ⫽ hierarchical model; BF ⫽ bifactor model; Uni ⫽
unidimensional model.
 4 LEVANT ET AL.
ton & Whittaker, 2006), which tends to inflate fit statistics. In addi-
tion, although the present study started from the 94-item version, Hsu
and Iwamoto (2014) started from the CMNI-46, which had already
dropped two factors, accounting for why only eight of the original 11
factors were retained.
Present Study
To create a new short form that captures most of the dimensions
of the original 94-item version with improved wording and strong
psychometric properties, we first revised the wording of most
items to improve their clarity and consistency with the construct of
norm conformity. We also expanded the scale from four to six
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
points to allow for greater variability and precision. Then an EFA
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
was conducted on the 94 items using a portion of the data. Because
the literature supports a common factors model, we next estimated
one using CFA with the balance of the data and used the resultant
factor loadings to create two candidate model short forms. We
planned a priori to generate a three items per subscale version of
the CMNI-30 because construction of latent variables in structural
equation modeling (SEM) requires use of at least three manifest
variables to indicate a latent factor without causing local identifi-
cation problems (Kline, 2016; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, &
Widaman, 2002). The first model was developed by applying CTT,
selecting the three highest loading items per factor. The second
model optimized CTT (CTT-Opt) by selecting three items for each
factor with higher factor loadings but also ensuring that the content
reflected all aspects of the subscale, while avoiding having too
similar items, and preserving content validity (Goetz et al., 2013).
As there is no literature directly bearing on this question, we
consider it to be exploratory.
Next, the best-fitting candidate model of the CMNI-30 was
compared with the 29-, 46-, and 94-item models using CFA to
assess fit with the data. Admittedly this was an imperfect compar-
ison because, as noted above, we had changed the wording of
many items to improve their clarity and congruence with the
construct of conformity. Then the CMNI-30 was utilized to test
measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) by racial group, com-
paring White participants to men of color. We were limited by low
sample sizes in the various groups of people of color, and thus
could not test specific identities. We recognize the limitations both
of aggregating these identities and of using a proxy variable like
racial/ethnic identification (Priem, Lyon, & Dess, 1999), and en-
courage investigators to examine specific identities using broader
measures of racial/ethnic identity in future studies. However, we
were ultimately guided by Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005)
theory of hegemonic masculinity that posits that the masculine
norms function not only to make men dominant over women but
also to marginalize men of color relative to White men. This has
to do with the relative privilege and power of White men and the
systems of oppression that marginalize men of color in the United
States (Alexander, 2012; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Hsu
and Iwamoto (2014) reported ME/I on the CMNI-29, comparing
White with Asian American participants, finding evidence for
configural, metric, and scalar invariance. However, their findings
were based only on the change in comparative fit index (CFI) and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) in going from
a less restrictive to a more restrictive model; they did not report the
change in scaled chi square or in standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR). Furthermore, McDermott et al. (2017) assessed
ME/I of a related instrument, the MRNI-SF, comparing men with
women, White men with Black and Asian men, and gay men with
heterosexual men. They found that the MRNI-SF demonstrated
configural invariance and at least partial metric invariance (i.e.,
measured similar constructs), but that scalar and residuals invari-
ance were only supported for Asian men compared with White
men. Based on these studies, it appears that ME/I is more likely to
be demonstrated in comparisons of White and Asian men, but there
is no literature directly bearing on our research question, and thus
we consider the ME/I of White men versus men of color to be an
exploratory question.
Finally, we conducted a preliminary assessment of criterion
evidence for validity. Given the myriad evidence associating
scores on various versions of the CMNI with measures of psycho-
logical well-being, we assessed correlations between CMNI-30
scores and high-bandwidth, well-established measures of mood
disturbance. We predicted that the three subscales (playboy, power
over women, and self-reliance) identified by Wong et al. (2017) as
consistently related to maladaptive mental health outcomes would
be moderately positively associated with diagnostic measures of
depression and anxiety.
Method
Participants
Data from 1,561 college (n ⫽ 113) and community (n ⫽ 1,448)
men were used in the study.1 A recent study has found that
supplementing traditional college convenience samples with com-
munity samples recruited from the Internet may help researchers
assemble samples that are more representative of the U.S. popu-
lation (Alto, McCullough, & Levant, 2018).
Ages ranged from 18 to 76 years, with a mean of 36.27 (SD ⫽
12.18). The median age was 33.0, and the mode was 30.0. Most
participants self-identified as White/European American (73%), 6.2%
identified as Black/African American, 8.9% as Asian/Asian Ameri-
can, 6.9% as Latino, and 2.7% as multiracial. The remaining 2.3% of
participants identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Pacific Is-
lander/Native Hawaiian, other, or did not respond. In terms of highest
educational degree, 0.4% did not complete high school, 9.4% had a
high school diploma or graduate equivalency diploma, 10% had an
associate’s degree, 23.5 completed some college, 40.8% had a bach-
elor’s degree, 11.5% had a master’s or specialist degree, and 3.5% had
a doctoral degree. The remainder (0.9%) preferred not to answer or
did not respond to this question. Reported family/household in-
come levels were as follows: under $20,000, 11.5%; $20,001–
$40,000, 21.3%; $40,001–$60,000, 23.3%; $60,001–$80,000,
17.7%; $80,001–$100,000, 9.6%; and over $100,000, 15.3%. The
remainder (1.3%) did not respond to this question.
In terms of self-identified socioeconomic status, of those who
responded to this question, the largest percentage (47%) identified
1
The two samples were compared on their scores on the 11 CMNI-94
subscales, finding that the community sample was significantly different
(lower) from the college sample on only the Risk-Taking subscale, which
makes sense intuitively. The two samples differed on both the validity
variables and their demographic characteristics as would be expected.
These comparisons are in Table 1 in the online supplemental materials.
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30
as middle class, although 29.3% identified as lower middle class,
9.9% as lower class, 12.1% as upper middle class, and 0.6% as
upper class. In terms of sexual orientation, most participants who
responded to this question (89%) identified as heterosexual/
straight, 3.9% identified as gay/lesbian, 5.8% as bisexual, and
0.7% as other. Most participants (87.3%) indicated that their
preferred sexual partner was always female, 4.7% indicated always
male, and 7.4% indicated either female or male. The remainder
(0.6%) preferred not to answer or did not respond to this question.
In terms of relationship status, 30.4% participants indicated they
were single; 42.2% indicated they were married, partnered, or
engaged; 13.7% indicated they were dating one person exclu-
sively; 7.2% were currently partnered without legal recognition;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and 6.1% were dating casually. The remaining participants (0.3%)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
preferred not to answer this question. Regarding religious affilia-
tion, the largest percentage (46.4%) identified as Christian; 32.7%
identified as either agnostic or atheist; 9.5 identified as none; and
11.4% identified as either Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Pa-
gan, other, or did not respond to the question.
Measures
Demographic questionnaire. The demographic question-
naire asked participants to report their gender, race/ethnicity, age,
relationship status, preferred gender identity of sexual partner,
sexual orientation, level of education, family household income,
socioeconomic status, and religious identity.
CMNI. Participants completed a revision of the original (94-
item) CMNI (Mahalik et al., 2003), designed to measure partici-
pants’ conformity to 11 masculine norms. Of the 94 items, 54 had
wording changes. Some items were changed to improve clarity
(e.g., changed from “In general I will do anything to win” to “I will
do anything to win”), and some items were changed that did not
clearly reflect conformity (“I do . . .”) but rather reflected ideology
(“men should . . .”; e.g., changed from “It is best to keep your
emotions hidden” to “I try to keep my emotions hidden”). The
number of items and a sample item for each subscale are as
follows: Winning (10),“Winning is not my first priority”; Primacy
of Work (8), “I feel good when work is my first priority”; Emo-
tional Control (11), “I try to keep my emotions hidden”; Pursuit of
Status (6), “It feels good to me to be important”; Heterosexual
Self-Presentation (10), “I would be furious if someone thought I
was gay”; Playboy (12), “I would frequently change sexual part-
ners if I could”; Violence (8), “I like getting into fist fights”;
Self-Reliance (6), “I hate asking for help”; Risk-Taking (10),
“Taking risks help me prove myself”; Power Over Women (9), “I
control the women in my life”; Dominance (4), “In general, I must
get my way.” Mahalik et al. (2003) reported Cronbach’s alphas for
subscales ranging from .72 and .91, and high test–retest reliability
over a 2- to 3-week period, using data from mostly White college
men and women. Items were rated on a six-point Likert scale
(which is a change from the original four-point scale, designed to
capture greater variability and allow for more precision) and
ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Several
CMNI subscales related positively to their respective scales in the
Gender Role Conflict Scale, and to psychological distress, social
dominance, aggression, and seeking muscularity, while others
related negatively psychological help-seeking and social desirabil-
5
ity, indicating that CMNI subscales measure what they are in-
tended to measure (Mahalik et al., 2003).
Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7-Item Scale (GAD-7). Part-
icipants completed the GAD-7 (Löwe et al., 2008) to assess
anxiety. The instructions stated, “over the last 2 weeks how often
you have been bothered by the following.” A sample item is “not
being able to stop or control worrying.” Items are rated on a
four-point scale from 0 (not at all) to (3) nearly every day. The
GAD-7 has been used as an assessment of symptoms and anxiety
across myriad samples. The measure has demonstrated strong
psychometric properties including good model-data fit, strong
convergent validity with other measures of anxiety, measurement
invariance across gender, good test–retest reliability with .83 in-
traclass correlation, and good internal reliability (e.g., Rutter &
Brown, 2017; Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Löwe, 2006).
Patient Health Questionnaire–2-Item Scale (PHQ-2). Parti-
cipants completed the PHQ-2 (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams,
2003). Items asked participants to indicate “over the last 2 weeks
how often they have been bothered by the following.” A sample
item is “little interest or pleasure in doing things.” Items are rated
on a four-point scale, which ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly
every day). The PHQ-2 is a well-established screener for depres-
sion. The measure has demonstrated strong psychometric proper-
ties including strong convergent evidence for validity with other
measures of depression, good reliability, and measurement invari-
ance across gender (Manea et al., 2016; Richardson et al., 2010).
Recruitment and Survey Procedures
The study was approved by the University of Akron Institutional
Review Board. All participants were provided with a link to a Qual-
trics website, which hosted the study. After completing the informed
consent page, participants filled out the questionnaires and then were
provided with an educational debriefing. Community-dwelling par-
ticipants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
service. Data obtained from MTurk has been demonstrated to be valid
and reliable when appropriate selection criteria and attention checks
are used (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Peer, Vosgerau, & Ac-
quisti, 2014). The survey contained three validity check items (e.g.,
“Thank you for taking our survey. Please click strongly agree”).
Failing a validity check resulted in being exited from the study.
Following completion of the study, payment was granted through an
automated link between the Qualtrics survey and MTurk. Undergrad-
uate students were recruited from the voluntary research participant
pools at the University of Akron and University of Texas at Austin
and received course credit for completing the study. At the conclusion
of the survey, they were directed to a different Qualtrics site where
they could enter their contact information confidentially for their
course credit.
Sample Size Considerations
For the EFA, 470 cases were randomly selected from the full
data set of 1,561. This sample size allowed for five participants per
item, which is within the range of current practice (Costello &
Osborne, 2005). For the single-group CFAs, multigroup CFAs,
and validity analyses, we used the remaining 1,091 cases. This
sample size is adequate using the MacCallum, Browne, & Sug-
awara (1996, Table 4) criteria. The largest number of degrees of
 6 LEVANT ET AL.

freedom of the CFAs was 286, indicating that the minimum sample represent the magnitude of metric and scalar measurement noninvari-
size was ⬍178. ance. Based on simulation data, in which researchers manipulated the
level of noninvariance in a model from small (i.e., not practically
meaningful) to large (Nye et al., 2018), DMACS were interpreted using
Data Analytic Procedures
the following effect size cutoffs: .40 (small), .60 (medium), and .80
Overview. EFA of the 94 CMNI items was conducted, using (large).
principle axis factoring with oblimin rotation to reassess the di-
mensionality of the scale. Next, a common factors model was
Results
confirmed using CFAs. The common factors model was then used
as a basis for specifying the two candidate models of the CMNI-30
(CTT, CTT-Opt), for assessing measurement invariance, and for Preliminary Results
examining validity.
Data cleaning, missing values, normality. The complete
Statistical analyses. The EFA and descriptive statistics were
data set, consisting of 2,253 participants, was screened before
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

calculated using SPSS 25 (IBM, 1989, 2017). For the CFAs,

conducting statistical analyses. These included 1,647 from MTurk,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Mplus (Version 8; Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2017) was used. The
and 606 from the first and second author’s universities; both data
overall fit of all CFA models was assessed with the scaled chi-
sets included all measures. One participant was removed due to
square goodness-of-fit test. However, because this statistic is de-
age less than 18, 285 were removed for stopping immediately after
pendent on sample size, it is overly sensitive to trivial sources of
the consent question or for missing more than 30% of the data, and
model misfit when sample sizes are large, as in the current study
282 were removed for failing one or more of the three attention
(Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Thus, a set of alternative fit indices
checks. Additionally, 124 participants were removed for identify-
was consulted to determine whether a model demonstrates ade-
ing as women. The final dataset was N ⫽ 1,561. A low level of
quate fit (Kahn, 2006). These indices and the criteria used to assess
missing data was observed, ranging from 3 to 18 missing responses
their values (see Kline, 2016) were (1) the CFI; (2) the Tucker–
per item. Most items were missing less than 1% of all responses
Lewis Index (TLI), for which both indices values of ⬎.90 indicate
with two items missing 1.1% of responses. The total percentage of
reasonable fit, and values of ⱖ.95 indicate good fit; (3) the
missing responses for 94 items was ⬍1%. Furthermore, no other
RMSEA, where good model fit is indicated by values of ⱕ.05 and
major complicating concerns such as small sample size or poor
values between .05 and .08 suggest reasonable fit; and (4) SRMR,
internal reliability of scales were present. Thus, data analysis
for which values of ⱕ.05 suggest good model fit, and values
proceeded following the simplest path; no missing values were
of ⬍.10 are considered acceptable.
imputed and all available responses for each item were used in the
The relative fits of nested single-group or multigroup CFA
analysis (Parent, 2013). The data was mildly non-normally distrib-
models were compared using a scaled chi-square difference tests
uted, with values for scales of skew ranging from ⫺1.28 to 1.36
(adjusted to take into consideration the use of the maximum
and of kurtosis ranging from ⫺1.28 to 1.55. To accommodate this
likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) estimator
nonnormality, the Mplus MLR option was used, which calculates
(see Satorra & Bentler, 1999 and instructions at the Mplus web site
the scaled chi-square test statistic.
by accessing http://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml)). The chi-
Outliers. The sample yielded a large number of multivariate
square difference test allows investigators to determine if a dec-
outliers (183; 10.86%), as evidenced by Mahalanobis distance
rement in fit associated with a nested or more constrained model is
procedures. The multivariate outlier participants were compared
statistically significant. However, the chi-square difference test,
with the nonoutlier participants. Groups differed significantly on
like the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, is dependent on sample
seven of the subscales: winning, risk taking, dominance, power
size (Cheung & Lau, 2012; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Because
over women, heterosexual self-presentation, primacy of work, and
the ⌬␹2 is expected to be statistically significant in samples larger
pursuit of status with the multivariate outlier group scoring higher
than 300 (Kline, 2016), we also consulted the ⌬CFI. Althogh Chen
than the other group on all seven subscales. Findings indicate that
(2007) suggested ⌬CFI of ⬍.01, Meade, Johnson, and Braddy
the multivariate outlier groups represent participants with higher
(2008) suggested that a ⌬CFI of ⬍.002 would provide evidence for
but still valid masculine norm conformity, and thus multivariate
a more parsimonious equality-constrained model. If the fit of a
outliers were not deleted.
model is not degraded by imposing equality constraints on the
factor loadings or a similar parameter such as the intercepts, then the
more constrained model is preferred because it is more parsimonious. EFA, CFA, and Creation and Comparison of the
A more parsimonious model would be one in which, for example, a Candidate Models
single set of factor loadings suffices for both groups, rather than a
separate set of loadings for each. Last, because measurement invari- The EFA of the 94 items extracting 11 factors resulted in the
ance testing is limited by yielding only a go (invariance) or no-go elimination of nine items, seven for low loadings (⬍.35), and two
(noninvariance) decision, in cases where the evidence for a particular for cross loadings (⬎.32; cf. Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The
level of invariance was equivocal, we first performed a series of post Dominance subscale did not survive but the remaining 10 sub-
hoc bootstrap confidence interval tests to examine the differences scales did. This was not surprising because the Dominance sub-
between the groups on the parameter (e.g., item intercepts), and then scale has not demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in
calculated the effect size for measurement noninvariance, the DMACS
(Nye & Drasgow, 2011; Nye, Bradburn, Olenick, Bialko, & Drasgow, 2
DMACS software is available at https://psychology.psy.msu.edu/
2018).2 DMACS effect sizes are provided for each item and generally pers_nye/.
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30
prior research. In Mahalik et al. (2003), most of the initial 12
Dominance items did not load onto any CMNI subscale or loaded
onto a different subscale, and as a result their final Dominance
subscale had only four items, the lowest number for any CMNI-94
subscale. Furthermore, in Parent and Moradi (2009), the Domi-
nance subscale did not survive the factor analysis. In sum, the
Dominance items appear to be too vague or broad to support
continued use of the Dominance subscale. However, to ensure that
these findings were not merely artifacts of prior study character-
istics, we included the Dominance items in our EFA analysis. The
EFA results are shown in Table 2.
Next, the measurement model was confirmed by using CFA to
estimate a common factors model. We then used the factor load-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ings from the common factors model to develop the two candidate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
short-form models. The CTT model was developed by simply
selecting the three highest loading items for each factor, whereas
CTT-opt model was developed by selecting three items for each
factor with higher factor loadings but also ensuring that the content
reflected all aspects of the subscale, while avoiding having too
similar items, and preserving content validity (Goetz et al., 2013).
This resulted in replacing 6 items of the CTT model. Then we
compared them using CFA. The CTT model fit well: ␹2(360) ⫽
786.46, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .961, TLI ⫽ .953, RMSEA ⫽ .033 (90%
CI [.030, .036]), SRMR ⫽ .037. The CTT-Opt model fit reason-
ably well: ␹2(360) ⫽ 987.16, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .935, TLI ⫽ .921,
RMSEA ⫽ .040 (90% CI [.037, .043]), SRMR ⫽ .046. Comparing
the CTT versus the CTT OPT, ⌬CFI ⫽ ⫺.026 favoring CTT,
above even the more liberal cutoff of .01. Hence, the best fitting
candidate model for the CMNI-30 was CTT. The factors, items
and standardized factor loadings of the CMNI-30 are shown in
Table 3.
As a final analysis we assessed the variance composition of the
CMNI-30, estimating in addition to the common factors model
discussed above, bifactor, hierarchical and unidimensional models.
Only the unidimensional model converged, and it showed poor fit
statistics: ␹2(405) ⫽ 10, 136, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .107, TLI ⫽ .041,
RMSEA ⫽ .148 (90% CI [.146, .151]), SRMR ⫽ .198. Hence, as
was found for the CMNI-94, the CMNI-30 is best modeled as a
common factors structure.
CFA Comparisons With the CMNI-29, CMNI-46 and
CMNI-94
We ran CFAs (common factors model) for the 29-, 46-, and
94-item versions using our data. Of course, this was not an exact
comparison because we had changed the wording of many of the
items to improve item clarity and consistency as noted above,
which would likely improve fit statistics. For the CMNI-29:
␹2(349) ⫽ 1,102.26; p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .930; TLI ⫽ .919;
RMSEA ⫽ .044 (90% CI [.041, .047]); SRMR ⫽ .049. The
CMNI-30 had better fit statistics than the CMNI-29, notably with
the CFI at .961 and TLI at .953 meeting the criterion for good fit
(⬎.95), whereas the CFI and TLI for the CMNI-29 was .930 and
.919, which is only considered reasonable fit. Also, the RMSEA
and SRMR were lower for the CMNI-30. Comparing this analysis
to Hsu and Iwamoto’s (2014) results, we found a comparable CFI
but the RMSEA and SRMR were a little worse in the present study
but still less than .05.
7
For the CMNI-46, whereas the chi-square was significant,
␹2(953) ⫽ 3643.49, p ⬍ .001, RMSEA and SRMR were reason-
able; but CFI and TLI were inadequate (CFI ⫽ .859, TLI ⫽ .847,
RMSEA ⫽ .051; 90% CI [.049, .053]; SRMR ⫽ .063). Finally, for
the CMNI-94, whereas the chi-square was significant, ␹2(3,034) ⫽
10,694.66, p ⬍ .001, the RMSEA was good (.048, 90% CI [047,
.049]), the SRMR was reasonable (.074), but the CFI (.786) and
TLI (.778) were poor. Hence, using the present data, the CMNI-30
fit better than the 29-, 46-, and 94-item versions.
Assessment of Measurement Invariance
We next used multigroup CFAs of CMNI-30 responses to assess
configural, metric, scalar and residuals invariance. A series of
nested models was estimated, treating men of color and White men
as two separate subsamples in simultaneous estimations. All mod-
els used the common factors model as their dimensional structure.
Although the chi-square was statistically significant for all models,
CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR, were at acceptable levels. Fol-
lowing the recommended practices for testing invariance (cf.
Kline, 2016), models with increasingly stringent cross-group
equality constraints were examined for differences in the scaled
chi-square and CFI. A nonsignificant increase in chi-square or a
change in CFI (⌬CFI) less than established cut-offs between
models with and without cross-group equality constraints indicated
that the model with cross-group equality constraints did not sig-
nificantly degrade fit to the data, and the invariance/equivalence
between the two groups was supported.
The first model imposed no equality constraints across
groups on any parameters, and thus provided a test of configural
invariance—meaning that the same pattern of factor loadings
held across groups. This least parsimonious model showed
good fit to the data, ␹2(720) ⫽ 1,411.41, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .958,
TLI ⫽ .949, RMSEA ⫽ .035, 90% CI [.033, .038], SRMR ⫽
.040. All standardized factor loadings were significant and
ranged from .37 to .89 for men of color ranged and .53 to .92
for White men. Therefore, configural invariance was demon-
strated in this data set. Following recommended procedures, we
next turned to tests of stronger factorial invariance (Vandenberg
& Lance, 2000).
The second model constrained factor loadings to be equal for
both groups of men, and thus provided a test of full metric
invariance. Except for the statistically significant chi-square sta-
tistic, overall the fit of this model was good, ␹2(740) ⫽ 1,437.76,
p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .957, TLI ⫽ .950, RMSEA ⫽ .035, 90% CI [.032,
.038], SRMR ⫽ .041. All standardized factor loadings were sig-
nificant and ranged from .42 to .90 for men of color and .52 to .92
for White men. When the more parsimonious metric invariance
model was compared with the configural invariance model, we
found that the chi-square difference test was not statistically sig-
nificant, ⌬␹2(20) ⫽ 25.55, ns, indicating that the more constrained
metric model did not degrade fit. Furthermore, the ⌬CFI was only
.001 smaller, meeting the most restrictive criterion. Hence, the data
support full metric invariance.
Given that metric invariance was established with the data, a
model specifying full scalar invariance (i.e., invariance of the item
intercepts for the latent factors) was estimated. This model fit well
in an absolute sense, ␹2(760) ⫽ 1,487.93, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .955,
TLI ⫽ .949, RMSEA ⫽ .035, 90% CI [.033, .038], SRMR ⫽ .041.
 8 LEVANT ET AL.

Table 2
Standardized Factor Pattern Loadings From Exploratory Factor Analysis of the CMNI-94 Items

CMNI item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

F1: Winning
48. It is important for me to win .77
67. Winning is not important to me (R) .69
22. Winning is not my first priority (R) .65
75. The best feeling in the world comes from winning .59 .21
54. More often than not, losing does not bother me (R) .59
89. I work hard to win .58 .27
39. I don’t mind losing (R) .54 .22 .22
2. I will do anything to win .53
69. I like to always get my way (Dom) .49
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

6. In general I must get my way (Dom) .45

12. I do not spend a lot of energy trying to win at things (R) .44 .23
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

F2: Emotional control

52. I like to talk about my feelings (R) .85
36. I bring up my feelings when talking to others (R) .81
77. I tend to share my feelings (R) .78
19. It is important for me to show my feelings (R) .76
27. I love to explore my feelings with others (R) .72
65. I tend to keep my feelings to myself .70
14. I show my feelings whenever I can (R) .70
88. I hate it when people ask me to talk about my feelings .66
93. I try to be unemotional .60 ⫺.23
43. I never share my feelings .52 .25
1. I try to keep my emotions hidden .51 .27

F3: Pursuit of status

26. I would hate to be important (R) .65
59. Having status is not important to me (R) .24 .58
7. I think that trying to be important is a waste of time (R) .56
50. I feel uncomfortable when people think I am important (R) .51
41. I don’t usually do things to be seen as an important person (R) .44

F4: Playboy
3. I would change sexual partners often if I could .83
72. I would find it enjoyable to date more than one person at a time .79
47. I would feel good if I had many sexual partners .78
28. If I could, I would date a lot of different people .72
58. For me, committed relationships are better than casual sex (R) .72
38. I date only one person at a time (R) .67
83. I don’t want to get tied down to dating just one person .67
33. I don’t have sex unless I am dating the person (R) .50
78. I like emotional involvement in a romantic relationship (R) .45 .21
13. For me the best part about sex is feeling close to the person (R) .24 .38

F5: Power over women

35. I treat women as equals (R) .83
57. Men and women should respect each other as equals (R) .79
21. I like having equal relationships with women (R) .76
9. I like it when women are equal to men (R) .75
86. I love it when men are in charge of women .68
61. The women in my life should obey me .62
71. I think men should not have power over women (R) .58
81. Things tend to be better when men are in charge .57
46. I control the women in my life .55

F6: Risk-taking
40. I take risks .83
24. I enjoy taking risks .82
92. I hate any kind of risk (R) .71
55. It would be foolish for me to take risks (R) .21 .70
17. I do not like risky situations (R) .68
(table continues)
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30 9

Table 2 (continued)

CMNI item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

60. I put myself in risky situations. .68

11. Taking risks helps me to prove myself .62
40. I take risks. .58
82. I prefer to be safe and careful (R) .54
70. I am happiest when I’m taking dangerous risks .52

F7: Primacy of work

76. Work comes first for me .84
64. I feel good when work is my first priority .80
30. My work is the most important part of my life .80
84. I tend to prioritize my work over other things .75
49. I don’t like giving all my attention to work (R) .23 .59
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8. I am usually absorbed in my work .58

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

20. I feel bad when work takes up all my attention (R) .29 .39

F8: Heterosexual self-presentation

51. It would be awful if people thought I was gay .81
73. I would get angry if people thought I was gay .80
16. I do not think it would be bad if someone thought I was gay (R) .80
37. I would be furious if someone thought I was gay .76
42. It would not bother me if someone thought I was gay (R) .73
5. It is important to me that people think I am straight .69
91. I try to avoid being perceived as gay .67
23. I make sure that people know I am straight .65
63. I like having gay friends (R) .27 .54
80. If someone thought I were gay, I would not argue with them about
it (R) .44

F9: Violence
68. It’s never ok for me to be violent (R) ⫺.76
44. I think that violence is sometimes necessary ⫺.73
62. I am willing to get into a physical fight if it is necessary ⫺.70
25. I dislike any kind of violence (R) ⫺.69
79. Even if a person made me very angry, I would not use violence (R) ⫺.55
4. If there is going to be violence, I find a way to avoid it (R) ⫺.42

F10: Self-reliance
53. I never ask for help .75
85. It bothers me when I have to ask for help .68
74. I am not ashamed to ask for help .64
10. I hate asking for help .63
45. If I asked for help it would be a sign of failure. .61
Note. Item numbers refer to the number of the item in the original Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). Factor (F) loadings ⬍ .2 were
suppressed. Dom refers to the original scale (Dominance) for these items. R ⫽ reverse scored.

All standardized factor loadings were significant and ranged from
.42 to .90 for men of color and .52 to .90 for White men. However,
the results were equivocal when comparing the scalar with the
metric model, ⌬␹2(20) ⫽ 52.51, p ⬍ .001, ⌬CFI ⫽ .002.
Given the strength of the fit statistics and factor loadings we
evaluated scalar invariance further, following the recommenda-
tions of Cheung and Lau (2012) and performed a series of post
hoc bootstrap confidence interval tests to examine the differ-
ences between the groups on item intercepts. These tests deter-
mined that out of 30 comparisons, 11 were invariant; however,
in four comparisons, White men had larger intercepts, and in 15
comparisons, men of color had larger intercepts. Although this
test revealed measurement noninvariance between White men
and men of color, DMACS effect sizes ranged from .03 to .27.
Thus, although most intercepts were noninvariant, the magni-
tude of any measurement noninvariance was considered small
and potentially inconsequential (Nye et al., 2018), indicating
partial scalar invariance.
Given these results, which support a conclusion of partial
strong invariance (Kline, 2016), we proceeded to assess strict
invariance, namely that of residuals, which (if found) would
mean that the indicators measure the factors in each group
with the same degree of precision. The model had reasonable
fit: ␹2(810) ⫽ 1,836.64, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .937, TLI ⫽ .932,
RMSEA ⫽ .041, 90% CI [.038, .043], SRMR ⫽ .054. All
standardized factor loadings were significant and ranged from
.49 to .88 for men of color and .49 to .89 for White men.
However, this model degraded fit when comparing the residuals
with the scalar model, ⌬␹2(50) ⫽ 304.49, p ⬍ .001, ⌬CFI ⫽
.018, exceeding even the more liberal criterion. However, given
the strength of the fit statistics and factor loadings and docu-
mented Type I error problems associated with chi-square dif-
 10 LEVANT ET AL.

Table 3
Standardized Factor Loading From Single-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the CMNI-30

CMNI item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

F1: Emotional control

77. I tend to share my feelings (R) .86
52. I like to talk about my feelings (R) .84
36. I bring up my feelings when talking to others (R) .83

F2: Winning
75. For me, the best feeling in the world comes from winning .77
2. I will do anything to win .67
6. In general I must get my way .66
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

F3: Playboy
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

47. I would feel good if I had many sexual partners .89

3. I would change sexual partners often if I could .84
72. I would find it enjoyable to date more than one person at a time .78

F4: Violence
68. It’s never ok for me to be violent (R) .77
44. I think that violence is sometimes necessary .71
25. I dislike any kind of violence (R) .67

F5: Heterosexual self-presentation

51. It would be awful if people thought I was gay .89
73. I would get angry if people thought I was gay .88
37. I would be furious if someone thought I was gay .87

F6: Pursuit of status

59. Having status is not important to me (R) .82
7. I think that trying to be important is a waste of time (R) .61
26. I would hate to be important (R) .54

F7: Primacy of work

76. Work comes first for me .91
64. I feel good when work is my first priority .76
84. I need to prioritize my work over other things .79

F8: Power over women

86. I love it when men are in charge of women .86
61. The women in my life should obey me .78
81. Things tend to be better when men are in charge .77

F9: Self reliance

85. It bothers me when I have to ask for help .75
74. I am not ashamed to ask for help (R) .73
53. I never ask for help .67

F10: Risk-taking
24. I enjoy taking risks .86
40. I take risks .77
60. I put myself in risky situations .72
Note. Item numbers refer to the number of the item in the original Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). F ⫽ factor; R ⫽ reverse scored.

ference tests and ⌬CFI (Cheung & Lau, 2012; Kline, 2016), we
further evaluated residual invariance and performed a series of
post hoc bootstrap confidence interval tests to examine the
differences between the groups on item residuals. These tests
determined that out of 30 comparisons, 21 were invariant,
suggesting partial residuals invariance (i.e., a minority of items
were noninvariant; Kline, 2016). In sum, the results support full
configural and metric and partial scalar and residuals invariance
in the two racial/ethnic groups for the 10 latent factors of the
CMNI-30.
Descriptive Statistics
Given the support for the common factors structure of the
CMNI-30 in the total sample, and for partial scalar and resid-
uals invariance across groups, we provide raw score-based
subscale scores for the CMNI-30 separately for White men and
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30 11

men of color, for purposes of comparison with future studies
that use this instrument. Means, standard deviations and alpha
coefficients for these subscales (as well as the other study
variables) are displayed in Table 4, and correlation coefficients
are shown in Table 5. It should be pointed out that the alpha
coefficients for two subscales (violence, pursuit of status)
were ⬍.70 for men of color.
Validity Analyses
We conducted a preliminary assessment of the validity of the
CMNI-30 using diagnostic scores on two often-used assessments
of depression (GAD-7) and anxiety (PHQ-2). There were three sets
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
materials. The model with GAD-7 scores as the dependent variable
was still significant, F(10, 1550) ⫽ 15.256, p ⬍ .001, R2 ⫽ 0.090.
The results for playboy, power over women and self-reliance were
very similar to those with the CMNI-30, as were those for emo-
tional control and primacy of work, which is no surprise since they
were the same items. The results for Winning was now associated
with GAD-7 scores, negatively. As a preoccupation with success is
conceptually related to anxiety, this change is in the opposite
direction from what would be conceptually anticipated. Risk-
taking also became significantly associated with GAD-7 scores,
likely due to alterations in the covariance matrix among the sub-
scales. For PHQ-2 scores the model was still significant, F(10,
1548) ⫽ 15.992. p ⬍ .001, R2 ⫽ 0.090. Again, the results for

of analyses. First, scores on the 10 CMNI-30 subscales were playboy, power over women and self-reliance were similar to those
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

regressed on GAD-7 and PHQ-2 scores. The association between
CMNI-30 subscales and GAD-7 scores was significant, F(10,
1550) ⫽ 14.88, p ⬍ .001, R2 ⫽ 0.09, as was their association with
PHQ-2, F(10, 1548) ⫽ 14.83, p ⬍ .001, R2 ⫽ 0.09. Results are
presented in Table 6. We had predicted that playboy, power over
women, and self-reliance scales would be moderately and posi-
tively associated with diagnostic measures of depression and anx-
iety, which was partially supported. For anxiety the associations
were significant and positive for playboy (␤ ⫽ .064), and self-
reliance (␤ ⫽ .278); however, they were significant and negative
for power over women (␤ ⫽ ⫺.066). In addition, they were
significant and negative for emotional control (␤ ⫽ ⫺.070), and
primacy of work (␤ ⫽ –.087). With regard to anxiety, the associ-
ations were significant and positive for playboy (␤ ⫽ .087), and
self-reliance (␤ ⫽ .269), but they were not significant for power
over women (␤ ⫽ .030); they were also significant and negative
for emotional control (␤ ⫽ ⫺.064), pursuit of status (␤ ⫽ ⫺.053)
and primacy of work (␤ ⫽ ⫺.076). Ferguson (2009) recommends
a minimum effect size of .2, and for both depression and anxiety
only self-reliance rises to this level.
Second, we conducted the same analysis using the CMNI-29, in
which only the items loading on the winning, violence, and het-
erosexual self-presentation differed from those in the CMNI-30.
The results are shown in Table 2 in the online supplemental
with the CMNI-30, as were those for emotional control and pri-
macy of work, but not for pursuit of status. Winning was also
associated with PHQ-2 scores, again in the opposite direction from
what would be conceptually anticipated.
Third, we assessed for differences by majority or minority racial
status in the relationship between CMNI-30 subscales and mea-
sures of depression and anxiety by conducting moderation analy-
ses. Mean-centered transformations of the CMNI-30 subscales and
race (dichotomously coded into White men and men of color) were
entered in the first block of a regression. The interaction terms
between race and each CMNI-30 subscale were entered in the
second block. The interaction terms did not improve the regression
in predicting PHQ-2 scores. Block 1, F(11, 1529) ⫽ 13.45, p ⬍
.001, R2 ⫽ 0.09; Block 1 and 2, F(10, 1519) ⫽ 7.57, p ⬍ .001,
R2 ⫽ 0.10; ⌬F ⫽ 1.09, p ⫽ .364. The interaction terms did add to
the prediction of GAD-7 scores, Block 1, F(11, 1531) ⫽ 13.39,
p ⬍ .001, R2 ⫽ 0.08; Block 1 and 2, F(10, 1521) ⫽ 8.13, p ⬍ .001,
R2 ⫽ 0.10; ⌬F ⫽ 2.22, p ⫽ .015. Significant interactions were
observed for race by the violence, playboy, and primacy of work
subscales. The simple slopes for the interactions are presented in
Figures 1 through 3 in the online supplemental materials. For the
interaction between violence and race, though the interaction was
significant the slopes were not significant for either men of color
(t ⫽ ⫺1.00, p ⫽ .316) or White men (t ⫽ 0.23, p ⫽ .815). For the

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Coefficients for Study Variables Separately for Men of
Color and White Men

White men (n ⫽ 1,140) Men of color (n ⫽ 403)

Scale and item M SD ␣ M SD ␣

F1: Emotional control 14.72 3.56 .90 13.99 3.73 .71

F2: Winning 9.49 3.12 .76 10.49 3.32 .74
F3: Playboy 8.34 4.11 .89 9.09 4.10 .86
F4: Violence 11.35 3.51 .78 11.48 3.30 .67
F5: Heterosexual self-presentation 7.94 4.11 .93 9.00 4.15 .89
F6: Pursuit of status 13.50 3.15 .72 13.73 3.17 .60
F7: Primacy of work 10.65 1.72 .81 11.06 1.84 .84
F8: Power over women 7.21 3.37 .85 8.39 3.64 .85
F9: Self-reliance 10.31 3.20 .78 10.48 3.44 .78
F10: Risk-taking 9.93 3.20 .84 10.97 3.30 .80
GAD-7 11.47 5.18 .94 12.07 5.57 .94
PHQ-2 3.23 1.64 .90 3.39 1.71 .86
Note. F1 through F10 are the 10 factors of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)-30.
GAD-7 ⫽ Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7-Item Scale; PHQ-2 ⫽ Patient Health Questionnaire–2-Item Scale.
 12 LEVANT ET AL.

Table 5
Correlation Coefficients for Study Variables Separately for Men of Color and White Men

Scale and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. F1: Emotional control — ⫺.11 .01 .21 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 ⫺.12 ⫺.06 .29 ⫺.19 ⫺.05 .00
2. F2: Winning ⫺.05 — .30ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .34 .17ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ
3. F3: Playboy .03 .27ⴱⴱ — .19ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .07 .15ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .27 .16ⴱⴱ .11ⴱ
4. F4: Violence .20ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ — .06 .07 ⫺.00 .19ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .19 .03 ⫺.01
5. F5: Heterosexual self-presentation .04 .36ⴱⴱ .03 .15ⴱⴱ — .02 .23ⴱⴱ .55ⴱⴱ .23 .11 .08 .05
6. F6: Pursuit of status ⫺.08ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ — .00 .03 ⫺.08 .10 .01 ⫺.02
7. F7: Primacy of work ⫺.07ⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱ .00 .10ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ — .23ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .10ⴱ ⫺.04
8. F8: Power over women .04 .44ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ — .27ⴱⴱ .26 .13ⴱ .15ⴱⴱ
9. F9: Self-reliance .37ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .02 .18ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .05 .7ⴱⴱ — .13 .30ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ
10. F10: Risk-taking ⫺.14 .35ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ .05 .24ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 — .12ⴱ .05
11. GAD-7 .05 .06 .07ⴱ .02 .02 ⫺.03 .00 .01 .26ⴱⴱ .04 — .76ⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12. PHQ-2 .05 .03 .13ⴱⴱ .00 .00 ⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.03 .04 .25ⴱⴱ .01 .75ⴱⴱ —
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Values for men of color appear above the diagonal, and those for White men appear below the diagonal. F1 through F10 are the 10 factors of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)-30. GAD-7 ⫽ Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7-Item Scale; PHQ-2 ⫽ Patient Health Questionnaire–
2-Item Scale.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

interaction between playboy and race, though the interaction was
significant the slopes were not significant for either men of color (t ⫽
1.33, p ⫽ .184) or White men (t ⫽ 1.79, p ⫽ .858). Finally, for the
interaction between primacy of work and race, the slope was signif-
icant for people of color (t ⫽ ⫺3.25, p ⬍ .001) but was not significant
and positive for White men (t ⫽ ⫺.91, p ⫽ .365). Thus, though three
significant interactions emerged, in only one was there a significant
effect among the two groups. This single association should be
interpreted with caution as the multiple comparisons conducted in-
crease the risk for Type I error. The observed effect indicates that the
association between primacy of work and GAD-7 scores is driven by
the presence of a relationship between these variables for men of color
only.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to refine the CMNI (Mahalik et
al., 2003) for several reasons. First, societal masculine norms have

Table 6
Results Comparing Mood Disorder Diagnostic Assessments With CMNI-30 Scores

90% CI
Item B SE ␤ p Upper bounds Lower bounds

GAD-7
Emotional control ⫺.345 .134 ⫺.070 .010 ⫺.608 ⫺.081
Winning .222 .182 .040 .223 ⫺.135 .579
Playboy .277 .113 .064 .014 .056 .498
Violence ⫺.011 .137 ⫺.002 .937 ⫺.279 .257
Heterosexual self-presentation .059 .126 .014 .639 ⫺.188 .305
Pursuit of status ⫺.225 .152 ⫺.040 .140 ⫺.522 .073
Primacy of work ⫺.881 .261 ⫺.087 .001 ⫺1.393 ⫺.370
Power over women ⫺.339 .161 ⫺.066 .036 ⫺.655 ⫺.023
Self-reliance 1.513 .150 .278 ⬍.001 1.219 1.806
Risk-taking .237 .149 .043 .114 ⫺.057 .530

PHQ-2
Emotional control ⫺.088 .038 ⫺.064 .020 ⫺.162 ⫺.014
Winning .018 .051 .012 .718 ⫺.082 .119
Playboy .105 .032 .087 .001 .043 .167
Violence ⫺.038 .038 ⫺.026 .326 ⫺.113 .038
Heterosexual self-presentation ⫺.044 .035 ⫺.036 .217 ⫺.113 .026
Pursuit of status ⫺.084 .043 ⫺.053 .049 ⫺.168 .000
Primacy of work ⫺.216 .073 ⫺.076 .003 ⫺.359 ⫺.072
Power over women .042 .045 .030 .348 ⫺.046 .131
Self-reliance .411 .042 .269 ⬍.001 .329 .494
Risk-taking .040 .042 .026 .336 ⫺.042 .123
Note. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7-Item Scale (GAD-7), 276 participants scored ⱖ10, and 1,284
participants scored ⬍10. For Patient Health Questionnaire–2-Item Scale (PHQ-2), 291 participants scored ⱖ3,
and 1,270 scored ⬍2. CMNI ⫽ Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30
continued to change in the nearly 20 years since the development
of the inventory. Using slightly revised items to improve clarity
and consistency with the construct of conformity and expanding
the scale from four to six points to allow for greater variability and
precision, we examined whether the revised items and factor
structures are psychometrically sound, an important question to
address given the changing constructions of masculinity. We also
note that counseling psychology scale development practices have
markedly improved during that time. As such, examining the short
form of the inventory with these tools can provide greater insight
into the validity of the measure as related to variance composition
and measurement invariance.
The refinement of the 94-item, 11-factor CMNI resulted in a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
30-item, 10-factor CMNI-30. The fact that a 10-factor structure
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
was identified, with a meaningfully reduced number of items, and
that evidenced strong model fit and measurement invariance
makes the CMNI-30 an important refinement of the CMNI. Spe-
cifically, a 10-factor structure better preserves the variability that
Mahalik et al. (2003) were pursuing when initially constructing the
inventory, more so than the nine-factor CMNI-46 (Parent & Mo-
radi, 2011) or the eight-factor CMNI-29 (Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014).
Retaining such a large number of distinct factors is critical because
Mahalik and his colleagues were interested in developing a tool
that could better provide an assessment of the variability of mas-
culinity.
At 30 items, the measure is substantially shorter than the most
prominent revision, for example, the CMNI-46 (Parent & Moradi,
2011). Indeed, three items per factor is the minimum necessary to
identify a measurement model in SEM (Kline, 2016; Little et al.,
2002), indicating the CMNI-30 is now as brief as can be possible
for a 10-factor structure. Furthermore, the present study assessed
measurement invariance across a broad spectrum of racial and
ethnic identities, whereas Hsu and Iwamoto only compared White
versus Asian American men. In addition, while Hsu and Iwamoto
had a sample of 893, ours was almost twice the size at 1,561. In
summary, the CMNI-30 best preserves the original inventory’s
capacity to evaluate conformity to a broad array of specific mas-
culinity norms that may be beneficial to address in promoting
men’s well-being (Gerdes & Levant, 2018; Hammer & Good,
2010; Wong et al., 2017), with significantly fewer items, while
demonstrating good fit and measurement invariance by race/eth-
nicity.
Results of the assessment of variance composition for the
CMNI-30 indicated that a common factors model best fit the data
in comparison to bifactor, hierarchical, or unidimensional models.
This indicated that the CMNI is best understood as a measure of
conformity to specific masculine norms rather than as a measure of
general masculine norm conformity, implying that the subscale
scores should be used in research and clinical practice but that the
total scale score should not be used.
Critical information about the construct validity of a measure is
whether the scale is invariant or equivalent across different groups,
or whether there is construct bias. As noted, configural and metric
invariance was supported, but evidence for scalar invariance was
equivocal. The post hoc bootstrap confidence interval tests indi-
cated partial scalar invariance with men of color having larger
intercepts for half of the comparisons. However, whereas signifi-
cant differences exist in terms of differential item functioning for
the scalar noninvariant items, the relative size of the differences
13
were small per the DMACS analyses. Indeed, the size of noninvari-
ance fell in a range consistent with full invariance in simulated
data (Nye et al., 2018). Thus, while there likely are unidentified
cultural components influencing the zero-point, the actual effect of
these components may be inconsequential, though additional re-
search will be needed to support this assertion. In this light, the
results indicated that the 10 factors of the CMNI-30 have the same
meaning and very close to the same zero points for White men and
men of color (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Xu & Tracey, 2017).
Finally, we found evidence for the partial invariance of the resid-
uals, with 70% being invariant, suggesting that for the most part
the factors in each group were measured with the same degree of
precision. Such findings provide initial evidence that the CMNI-30
can be used across White men and men of color with relative
confidence.
Like other studies examining conformity to masculinity norms
and mental health, we found significant relationships between
certain CMNI-30 subscale scores and the indicators of depression
and anxiety. That is, consistent with meta-analytic findings from
other versions of the CMNI, greater conformity to masculinity
norms was associated with less favorable mental health (Wong et
al., 2017). These findings provide preliminary concurrent evidence
for the validity of the CMNI-30, but we emphasize that this
evidence is very preliminary, and note three points. First, similar
results were found with the CMNI-29. Second, the effect sizes of
these relationships are small for all subscales except self-reliance.
And third, some CMNI subscales not associated with mental health
outcomes in Wong et al. (2017) were so associated in the present
study. Finally, the current study does not examine other evidence
for validity including convergent associations with other mascu-
linity measures or forms of the CMNI, discriminant differences
between groups, nor the temporal stability of the CMNI-30. Future
research should further investigate these topics, particularly the
concurrent evidence for validity using other scales and comparing
the CMNI-30 to the CMNI-29.
The present findings should be interpreted cautiously with re-
spect to several key limitations. Most notably, although the sample
was large and drawn from both community and college sources, it
was still a convenience sample, and participants self-selected.
Further, participants were predominantly White, educated, middle
class, heterosexual, and Christian. Hence, the present results might
not be generalizable to the whole population. Additional research
is needed that uses more sophisticated sampling procedures to
gather a truly representative sample of the U.S. population. Relat-
edly, although different portions of the data were used for the EFA
and CFAs, they were not independent data sets; future research
should endeavor to collect independent data sets.
Moreover, the study relies on self-report data which introduces
the possibility of socially desirable responding (SDR). SDR was
not measured in our study; however, a recent article demonstrated
that SDR is not always a problem (Tracey, 2016). In addition, the
data are cross-sectional, and used only three scales. Finally, the
alpha coefficients for two subscales were ⬍.70 for men of color
(violence ⫽ .67, pursuit of status ⫽ .60). This suggests that these
subscales may be less reliable for men of color. Future investiga-
tions using the CMNI-30 are encouraged to continue to address
these issues.
In conclusion, the study provides a meaningfully shorter version
of an influential measure that preserves the variability of the
 14 LEVANT ET AL.
original measure, confirms that the measure is best used when
examining specific masculinity norms, provides evidence of the
measure’s full configural and metric invariance and partial scalar
and residual invariance between two racial/ethnic groups for the 10
latent factors, as well as preliminary validity evidence. As such,
the current refinement demonstrates significant psychometric
strengths and we encourage its adoption for investigating confor-
mity to masculinity norms and their correlates.
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age
of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Alto, K., McCullough, K., & Levant, R. F. (2018). Who is on Craigslist?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A novel approach to participant recruitment for masculinities scholar-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ship. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 319 –324. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/men0000092
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A
comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk,
social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29, 2156 –2160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464 –504.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for
testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 15,
167–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428111421987
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829 – 859. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory
factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 86 –99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d8
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and
researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40, 532–
538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015808
Gerdes, Z. T., & Levant, R. F. (2018). Complex relationships among
masculine norms and health/well-being outcomes: Correlation patterns
of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory subscales. American
Journal of Men’s Health, 12, 229 –240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1557988317745910
Goetz, C., Coste, J., Lemetayer, F., Rat, A. C., Montel, S., Recchia, S., . . .
Guillemin, F. (2013). Item reduction based on rigorous methodological
guidelines is necessary to maintain validity when shortening composite
measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 710 –718.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.015
Hammer, J. H., & Good, G. E. (2010). Positive psychology: An empirical
examination of beneficial aspects of endorsement of masculine norms.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 303–318. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0019056
Hammer, J. H., Heath, P. J., & Vogel, D. L. (2018). Fate of the total score:
Dimensionality of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46
(CMNI-46). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 645– 651. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/men0000147
Heath, P. J., Brenner, R. E., Vogel, D. L., Lannin, D. G., & Strass, H. A.
(2017). Masculinity and barriers to seeking counseling: The buffering
role of self-compassion. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 94 –103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000185
Hsu, K., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2014). Testing for measurement invariance in
the Conformity to Masculine Norms-46 across White and Asian Amer-
ican college men: Development and validity of the CMNI-29. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 15, 397– 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0034548
IBM. (1989). IBM SPSS statistics (Version 25) [Computer software].
Retrieved from www.ibm.com/SPSS-Statistics
IBM. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics (Version 25) [Computer software].
Retrieved from www.ibm.com/SPSS-Statistics
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research,
training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 34, 684 –718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0011000006286347
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
eling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2003). The Patient Health
Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical
Care, 41, 1284 –1292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487
.78664.3C
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., & Rankin, T. J. (2013). Male Role Norms
Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor
analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across
gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 228 –238. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0031545
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Weigold, I. K., & McCurdy, E. R. (2015).
Construct distinctiveness and variance composition of multi-
dimensional instruments: Three short-form masculinity measures. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 488 –502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000092
Levant, R. F., & Pryor, S. (in press). The tough standard: The hard truths
about masculinity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levant, R. F., Wimer, D. J., & Williams, C. M. (2011). An evaluation of
the Health Behavior Inventory-20 (HBI-20) and its relationships to
masculinity and attitudes toward seeking psychological help among
college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 26 – 41. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0021014
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002).
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_1
Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W.,
& Herzberg, P. Y. (2008). Validation and standardization of the Gen-
eralized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population.
Medical Care, 46, 266 –274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR
.0b013e318160d093
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure mod-
eling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 –149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1082-989X.1.2.130
Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2007). Masculinity and
perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men’s health
behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2201–2209. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.035
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
Manea, L., Gilbody, S., Hewitt, C., North, A., Plummer, F., Richardson, R.,
. . . McMillan, D. (2016). Identifying depression with the PHQ-2: A
diagnostic meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 203, 382–395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.003
McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Hall, R. J., McKelvey,
D. K., & Jones, Z. (2017). Further examination of the factor structure of
the Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Measurement
 CONFORMITY TO MASCULINE NORMS INVENTORY-30
considerations for women, men of color, and gay men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 64, 724 –738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000225
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and
sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568 –592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.93.3.568
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nye, C. D., Bradburn, J., Olenick, J., Bialko, C., & Drasgow, F. (2018).
How Big Are My Effects? Examining the Magnitude of Effect Sizes in
Studies of Measurement Equivalence. Organizational Research Meth-
ods. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094
428118761122
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Effect size indices for analyses of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
measurement equivalence: Understanding the practical importance of
differences between groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 966 –
980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022955
O’Neill, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role
conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale. The Counseling Psychologist,
36, 358 – 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057
Owen, J. (2011). Assessing the factor structures of the 55- and 22-item
versions of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. American
Journal of Men’s Health, 5, 118 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1557988310363817
Parent, M. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as
good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 568 – 600. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0011000012445176
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 10, 175–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015481
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing
conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the Confor-
mity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
linity, 12, 339 –353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021904
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient
condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Re-
search Methods, 46, 1023–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-
0434-y
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1999). Inherent limitations of
demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research.
15
Journal of Management, 25, 935–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639902500607
Richardson, L. P., Rockhill, C., Russo, J. E., Grossman, D. C., Richards, J.,
McCarty, C., . . . Katon, W. (2010). Evaluation of the PHQ-2 as a brief
screen for detecting major depression among adolescents. Pediatrics,
125, e1097– e1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2712
Rutter, L. A., & Brown, T. A. (2017). Psychometric properties of the
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) in outpatients with
anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behav-
ioral Assessment, 39, 140 –146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-
9571-9
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test
statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief
measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Ar-
chives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archinte.166.10.1092
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 63, 224 –232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000135
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-
mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 3, 4 –70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. R., Wang, S.-Y., & Miller, I. S. (2017). Meta-analyses
of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental
health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 80 –93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development re-
search: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The
Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806 – 838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0011000006288127
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2017). Use of multi-group confirmatory factor
analysis in examining measurement invariance in Counseling Psychol-
ogy research. The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, 6,
75– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/ejcop.v6i1.120
Received July 31, 2019
Revision received November 14, 2019
Accepted November 22, 2019 䡲