Top

Published in:

01-05-2009 | IUGA Female Sexual Dysfunction Roundtable 2008

Item and instrument development to assess sexual function and satisfaction in outcomes research

Authors: Todd Rockwood, Melissa Constantine

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Special Issue 1/2009

Abstract

This article looks at two of the major issues associated with the development of condition-specific quality of life measures. The first issue is the process of conceptualization. The importance of conceptualization to developing sound questions and instruments is evaluated, and the need to utilize multiple perspectives in the conceptualization process is discussed. The second issue addressed is fundamentals of writing survey questions. Questions from a range of sexual function questionnaires are presented and discussed relative to seven basic guidelines associated with question and response category development.

Rockwood T, Constantine M (2005) Demographic and psychosocial factors. Understanding health care outcomes research. Kane RL, Gaithersburg MD, Aspen

Rockwood T (2005) Quality of life with urinary and fecal incontinence. Urinary and Fecal Incontinence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. In: Becker HD, Stenzl A, Wallwiender D, Zittel TT (eds) Springer, Berlin, pp 369-384

Rockwood TH (2004) Incontinence severity and QOL scales for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(1 Suppl 1):S106–S113PubMedCrossRef

Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak D, Villarreal A, Coates K, Qualls C (2001) A new instrument to measure sexual function in women with urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(4):552–558PubMedCrossRef

Groves RM (1989) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, New YorkCrossRef

Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken, Wiley

Payne SLB (1951) The art of asking questions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fowler FJ (1995) Improving survey questions: design and evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Sudman S, Bradburn NM (1996) Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

10.

Willis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

11.

Maaita M, Bhaumik J, Davies AE (2002) Sexual function after using tension-free vaginal tape for the surgical treatment of genuine stress incontinence. BJU Int 90(6):540–543PubMedCrossRef

12.

Rust J, Golombok S (1985) The handbook of the Golombok–Rust inventory of sexual satisfaction. NFER-Nelson, Windsor

13.

White CB (1982) A scale for the assessment of attitudes and knowledge regarding sexuality in the aged. Arch Sex Beh 11(6):491–502CrossRef

14.

Schwarz N, Sudman S (1992) Context effects in social and psychological research. Springer-Verlag, New York

15.

Sirken MG, Herrmann DJ (1999) Cognition and survey research. Wiley, New York

16.

Tourangeau R, Rips LJ (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

17.

Vail-Smith K, Durham TW et al (1992) A scale to measure embarrassment associated with condom use. J Health Ed 29:209–214

18.

Hochstim JR (1967) A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. J Am Stat Assoc 62(319):976–989CrossRef

19.

Biemer PP, Groves RM (1991) Measurement errors in surveys. Wiley, New York

20.

Stuber J, Galea S et al (2008) Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Soc Sci Med 67(3):420–430PubMedCrossRef

21.

Bradburn NM, Sudman S (1979) Improving interview method and questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

22.

Rockwood TH, Sangster RL (1997) The effect of response categories on questionnaire answers: context and mode effects. Sociol Methods Res 26(1):118–140CrossRef

23.

Schwarz N, Hippler H-J et al (1985) Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opin Q 49:388–395CrossRef

24.

Taylor JF, Rosen RC, Leiblum SR (1994) Self-report assessment of female sexual function: psychometric evaluation of the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning for Women. Arch Sex Beh 23(6):627–643CrossRef

25.

Alwin DF, Krosnick JA (1991) The reliability of survey attitude measurement: the influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociol Methods Res 20(1):139–181CrossRef

26.

Schwarz N, Knauper B et al (1991) Rating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly 55(4):570–582CrossRef

27.

Alwin DF (1997) Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: which are better? Sociol Methods Res 25(3):318–340CrossRef

28.

Schuman H, Presser S (1996) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments on question form, wording, and context. Sage, Thousand Oaks

29.

Lyberg L, Biemer P (1997) Survey measurement and process quality. Wiley, New York

Title: Item and instrument development to assess sexual function and satisfaction in outcomes research
Authors: Todd Rockwood
Melissa Constantine
Publication date: 01-05-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue Special Issue 1/2009
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0842-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Item and instrument development to assess sexual function and satisfaction in outcomes research

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2009

Shortcomings/strengths of specific sexual function questionnaires currently used in urogynecology: a literature review

Sexual health of women with pelvic floor disorders

Review of current status of female sexual dysfunction evaluation in urogynecology

Assessment of sexual function in women with pelvic floor dysfunction

Introduction to the 2008 IUGA Sexual Dysfunction in Women Roundtable

Sexual function in women: what is normal?