Evaluation of Adolescents’ Communication With Parents on Sexuality Topics


  • Stasė Ustilaitė Vilniaus kolegija
  • Alina Petrauskienė Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
  • Jūratė Česnavičienė Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania




communication with adolescents, sexuality education in the family, adolescents


The aim of this research is to reveal adolescents’ evaluations of family communication on sexuality issues. The objectives of the research are: 1) to determine how adolescents perceive openness in their communication with their parents on sexuality issues; 2) to reveal how adolescents perceive information about sexuality that is shared and discussed in conversations with parents; 3) to describe adolescents’ perceptions of the importance of the role of parents.

The current article presents the results of the research that was conducted by distributing an anonymous questionnaire survey to 816 adolescents on the website apklausa.lt The Family Sex Communication Quotient (FSCQ) questionnaire was adapted to the Lithuanian context and used for the survey of adolescents. The questionnaire, developed by C. Warren (2011), consists of 18 statements grouped into three scales: comfort, information, and value. The results of this study have revealed evaluations of adolescents’ communication with parents on sexuality topics: older adolescents (14–15 and 16–18 years old) feel more comfortable and are able to discuss sexuality subjects openly with their parents on various sexuality topics than younger adolescents (11–13 years old); a moderate level of adolescents’ communication with parents has been identified, whereas older adolescents are more likely to interact with mothers; older male adolescents demonstrate better awareness of the importance of communication and information on sexuality received from mothers, as well as the role of the family than females.




How to Cite

Ustilaitė, S., Petrauskienė, A., & Česnavičienė, J. (2022). Evaluation of Adolescents’ Communication With Parents on Sexuality Topics. Pedagogika, 146(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2022.146.8