Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment

Abstract

The Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment (MoSIEC) is a theoretically grounded, multi-dimensional instrument consisting of 22 items used to assess the processes of sexual identity development. Developed by Navarro, Bielstein Savoy, and Worthington (2008), the MoSIEC quantitatively applies James E. Marcia’s model of identity status (1966) to the construct of sexuality.

The measure is uniquely designed to assess development processes among individuals of any sexual orientation identity, thus avoiding constraints found in earlier measures limited to heterosexual or LGB samples. The MoSIEC is structured around four interrelated, yet independent, dimensions of sexual identity: Commitment, Exploration, Sexual Orientation Identity Uncertainty, and Synthesis/Integration.

Keywords

Sexual Identity, Identity Development, Exploration, Commitment, Sexual Orientation, Psychometrics, MoSIEC, Marcia’s Identity Statuses, Synthesis/Integration, Counseling Psychology

Authors

Rachel L. Navarro, Holly B. Bielstein Savoy, Roger L. Worthington, Dustin Hampton

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MoSIEC is two-fold: First, it seeks to quantitatively assess the psychological processes—specifically exploration and commitment—associated with Marcia’s model as applied to an individual’s sexual identity. Second, it was developed to provide a robust, non-constraining instrument capable of assessing sexual identity development among persons regardless of their specific sexual orientation identification.

By measuring processes rather than outcomes or specific group membership, the MoSIEC facilitates research into the dynamic nature of sexual self-understanding, including aspects such as sexual values, needs, activities, and modes of expression.

Construct

The MoSIEC measures identity development in the sexual domain, building upon established theories by Marcia (ego identity statuses) and Fassinger and colleagues (sexual minority identity formation). Identity development is conceptualized as an active process involving the assessment and establishment of a coherent, integrated identity.

The scale measures four core dimensions:

• Commitment: Assesses the degree to which an individual has established a firm sexual identity.
• Exploration: Measures a general orientation toward or away from engaging in sexual exploration, including past, current, and future considerations of one’s sexuality.
• Sexual Orientation Identity Uncertainty: Assesses the degree of commitment, or lack thereof, specifically related to one’s sexual orientation identity (similar to Marcia’s moratorium or diffusion statuses applied narrowly).
• Synthesis/Integration: Measures the degree of commitment to a unified, cohesive sexual identity where various components (needs, values, orientation) are harmonized.

Validity

The construct validity of the MoSIEC is supported through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple studies (Worthington et al., 2008). These analyses substantiated the four-factor structure retained in the final 22-item scale.

Convergent validity was established by demonstrating that the MoSIEC subscales correlate logically and consistently with related constructs, including age, religiosity, sexual conservatism, and various aspects of sexual self-awareness. Furthermore, criterion-related validity was supported by the MoSIEC’s ability to differentiate scores across distinct sexual orientation groups in expected ways. For instance, Exploration and Commitment subscales showed theoretically consistent correlations (or lack thereof) with variables such as professional experience, income, and LGB affirmative counseling self-efficacy (Dillon et al., 2008). Research also indicated that heterosexual attitudes toward LGB individuals correlated significantly with all four MoSIEC subscales, particularly sexual identity exploration and internalized affirmativeness regarding homosexuality (Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005).

Reliability

Reliability studies have consistently demonstrated high internal consistency for all four MoSIEC subscales. Reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in prior research (Dillon et al., 2008; Worthington et al., 2008) have exceeded the conventional threshold of 0.70, indicating strong homogeneity among the items within each subscale.

Furthermore, test-retest reliability estimates were assessed across a two-week interval in Study 4 of the original validation process (Worthington et al., 2008). These results confirmed the stability of the MoSIEC subscale scores over time, reinforcing the instrument’s reliability for longitudinal or repeated measures research.

Factor Analysis

The development and validation of the MoSIEC involved a rigorous four-study process, beginning with extensive factor analysis procedures. In Study 1, an initial pool of 48 items was generated, reflecting exploration and commitment across six crucial dimensions of sexual identity (sexual needs, sexual values, characteristics of sexual partners, preferred sexual activities, sexual orientation identity, and modes of sexual expression).

A principal-axis factor analysis utilizing oblique rotation was conducted on the initial item pool. This analysis resulted in the retention of a robust four-factor solution comprising 22 items. Study 2 subsequently employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across two independent samples to establish the stability of this four-factor structure, confirming the construct validity and factor reliability of the retained 22-item MoSIEC.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale

Format: 22 items, divided into four subscales. Responses use a 6-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Individuals undergoing the process of sexual identity development.

Age Group: Typically used with young adults and adults, though applicable where identity formation is relevant.

Population Details: The MoSIEC is specifically unique in its suitability for persons of any sexual orientation identity (heterosexual, LGB, or other identities), as the assessment focuses on developmental processes rather than group status.

Test Methodology: Participants rate items on a scale ranging from 1 (Very Uncharacteristic of Me) to 6 (Very Characteristic of Me). Completion time is typically 10 minutes. Subscale scores are calculated by averaging item ratings within each subscale after appropriate reverse scoring is applied to designated items.

Keywords

Psychological Measurement, Sexual Self-Awareness, Identity Status, Identity Formation, Counseling, Sexual Health, LGBTQ+, Psychometrics

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Roger L. Worthington)

Correspondence Address: Roger L. Worthington, 217 Jesse Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and validated in research published in 2008 (Worthington, Navarro, Savoy, & Hampton, 2008). Information regarding specific permissions and associated fees for commercial use is not provided in the source content, but correspondence can be directed to the corresponding author, Roger L. Worthington. Dustin Hampton contributed to the original research on the scale.

References

Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., Soth-McNett, A. M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2008). Gender and sexual identity based predictors of lesbian, gay, and bisexual affirmative counseling self-efficacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 353–360.

Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 53–78.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option (2nd ed.). New York: Haworth Press.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 551–558.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508–534.

Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005). Development, reliability and validity of the LGB Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 104–118.

Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & Hampton, D. (2008). Development, reliability and validity of the measure of sexual identity exploration and commitment (MoSIEC). Developmental Psychology, 44, 22–33.

Worthington, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Within group differences in sexual orientation and identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 44–55.

Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H., Dillon, F. R., & Vernaglia, E. R. (2002). Heterosexual identity development: A multidimensional model of individual and group identity [Monograph]. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 496–531.

Items of the Measure of Sexual Identity Exploration and Commitment

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Please read the following definitions before completing the survey items:

Sexual needs are defined as an internal, subjective experience of instinct, desire, appetite, biological necessity, impulses, interest, and/or libido with respect to sex.

Sexual values are defined as moral evaluations, judgments and/or standards about what is appropriate, acceptable, desirable, and innate sexual behavior.

Sexual activities are defined as any behavior that a person might engage in relating to or based on sexual attraction, sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or reproduction (e.g., fantasy to holding hands to kissing to sexual intercourse).

Modes of sexual expression are defined as any form of communication (verbal or nonverbal) or direct and indirect signals that a person might use to convey her or his sexuality (e.g., flirting, eye contact, touching, vocal quality, compliments, suggestive body movements or postures).

Sexual orientation is defined as an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction to other persons that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.

Please use the following scale to respond to Items 1–22.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Very Uncharacteristic of Me Very Characteristic of Me

1. My sexual orientation is clear to me.

   1 2 3 4 5 6

2. I went through a period in my life when I was trying to determine my sexual needs.

3. I am actively trying to learn more about my own sexual needs.

4. My sexual values are consistent with all of the other aspects of my sexuality.

5. I am open to experiment with new types of sexual activities in the future.

6. I am actively trying new ways to express myself sexually.

7. My understanding of my sexual needs coincides with my overall sense of sexual self.

8. I went through a period in my life when I was trying different forms of sexual expression.

9. My sexual values will always be open to exploration.

10. I know what my preferences are for expressing myself sexually.

11. I have a clear sense of the types of sexual activities I prefer.

12. I am actively experimenting with sexual activities that are new to me.

13. The ways I express myself sexually are consistent with all of the other aspects of my sexuality.

14. I sometimes feel uncertain about my sexual orientation.

15. I do not know how to express myself sexually.

16. I have never clearly identified what my sexual values are.

17. The sexual activities I prefer are compatible with all of the other aspects of my sexuality.

18. I have never clearly identified what my sexual needs are.

19. I can see myself trying new ways of expressing myself sexually in the future.

20. I have a firm sense of what my sexual needs are.

21. My sexual orientation is not clear to me.

22. My sexual orientation is compatible all of the other aspects of my sexuality.

Scoring:

Exploration = 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 19

Commitment = 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20

Synthesis = 4, 7, 13, 17, 22

Sexual Orientation Identity Moratorium = 1, 15, 21

Reverse-scored items are listed in bold typeface. Subscale scores are obtained by averaging ratings on items receiving a response for each participant. Thus, if Item 17 is not rated by a specific respondent, only the remaining four items on the Synthesis subscale are used to obtain the average, and so on. This method ensures comparable scores when there are missing data.