Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments to measure sexual desire

Authors: Denisse Cartagena-Ramos, Miguel Fuentealba-Torres, Flávio Rebustini, Ana Carolina Andrade Biaggi Leite, Willyane de Andrade Alvarenga, Ricardo Alexandre Arcêncio, Rosana Aparecida Spadoti Dantas, Lucila Castanheira Nascimento

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Sexual desire is one of the domains of sexual function with multiple dimensions, which commonly affects men and women around the world. Classically, its assessment has been applied through self-report tools; however, an issue is related to the evidence level of these questionnaires and their validity. Therefore, a systematic review addressing the available questionnaires is really relevant, since it will be able to show their psychometric properties and evidence levels.

Method

A systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy was developed according to the following research question and combination of descriptors and keywords, including original studies with no limit of publication date and in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Two reviewers carried out the selection of articles by abstracts and full texts as well as the analysis of the studies independently. The methodological quality of the instruments was evaluated by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

Results

The search resulted in 1203 articles, of which 15 were included in the review. It identified 10 instruments originally developed in the English language. Unsatisfactory results on methodological quality were evidenced in cultural adaptation studies with no description of the steps of the processes and inadequacy of techniques and parameters of adequacy for models. The Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation predominated in the studies.

Conclusions

The limitation of the techniques applied in the validation process of the reviewed instruments was evident. A limitation was observed in the number of adaptations conducted and contexts to which the instruments were applied, making it impossible to reach a better understanding of the functioning of instruments. In future studies, the use of robust techniques can ensure the quality of the psychometric properties and the accuracy and stability of instruments. A detailed description of procedures and results in validation studies may facilitate the selection and use of instruments in the academic and/or clinical settings.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42018085706.

Available only for authorised users

Levine SB. The nature of sexual desire: a clinician’s perspective. Arch Sex Behav. 2003;32:279–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023421819465. CrossRefPubMed

Spector IP, Carey MP, Steinberg L. The sexual desire inventory: development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. J Sex Marital Ther. 1996;22:175–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239608414655.CrossRefPubMed

Basson R. The female sexual response: a different model. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000;26:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278641.CrossRefPubMed

Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The female sexual function index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000;26:191–208.CrossRefPubMed

Conte HR. Multivariate assessment of sexual dysfunction. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986;54:149–57.CrossRefPubMed

Conte R. Development and use of self-report techniques for assessing sexual Functioning : a review and critique. Arch Sex Behav. 1983.

Rizvi SJ, Yeung NW, Kennedy SH. Instruments to measure sexual dysfunction in community and psychiatric populations. J Psychosom Res. 2011;70:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.05.009.CrossRefPubMed

Daker-White G. Reliable and Valid self-report outcome measures in sexual (Dys)function: a systematic review. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014743304566. CrossRefPubMed

McCabe MP, Sharlip ID, Lewis R, Atalla E, Balon R, Fisher AD, et al. Incidence and prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women and men: a consensus statement from the fourth international consultation on sexual medicine 2015. J Sex Med. 2016;13:144–52.CrossRefPubMed

10.

McCool ME, Zuelke A, Theurich MA, Knuettel H, Ricci C, Apfelbacher C. Prevalence of female sexual dysfunction among premenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.002.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Riphagen I, Knol DL, Bouter LM de VH. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:313–33.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1929–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f.CrossRef

18.

Kaplan HS, Harder DW. The sexual desire conflict scale for women: construction, internal consistency, and two initial validity tests. Psychol Rep. 1991;68:1275–82.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rosen RC, Lobo RA, Block BA, Yang H-M, Zipfel LM. Menopausal sexual interest questionnaire (MSIQ): a unidimensional scale for the assessment of sexual interest in postmenopausal women. J Sex Marital Ther. 2004;30:235–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230490422340.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Clayton AH, Segraves RT, Leiblum S, Basson R, Pyke R, Cotton D, et al. Reliability and validity of the sexual interest and desire inventory–female (SIDI-F), a scale designed to measure severity of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Marital Ther. 2006;32:115–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230500442300.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sills T, Wunderlich G, Pyke R, Segraves RT, Leiblum S, Clayton A, et al. Original research—women’s sexual dysfunctions: the sexual interest and desire inventory—female (SIDI-F): item response analyses of data from women diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Med. 2005;2:801–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00146.x.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Leiblum S, Symonds T, Moore J, Soni P, Steinberg S, Sisson M. Original research-outcomes assessment: a methodology study to develop and validate a screener for hypoactive sexual desire disorder in postmenopausal women. J Sex Med. 2006;3:455–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00247.x.CrossRefPubMed

23.

McCall K, Meston C. Original research—psychology: cues resulting in desire for sexual activity in women. J Sex Med. 2006;3:838–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00301.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Goldhammer DL, McCabe MP. Development and psychometric properties of the female sexual desire questionnaire (FSDQ). J Sex Med. 2011;8:2512–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02334.x.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kuhn W, Koenig J, Donoghue A, Hillecke T, Warth M. Psychometrische Eigenschaften einer deutschsprachigen Kurzversion des Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI-2). Zeitschrift für Sex. 2014;27:138–49. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1366582.CrossRef

26.

Ortega V, Zubeidat I, Sierra J. Further examination of measurement properties of Spanish version of the sexual desire inventory with undergraduates and adolescent students. Psychol Rep. 2006;99:147–65.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Carvalheira A, Brotto LA, Maroco J. Portuguese version of cues for sexual desire scale: the influence of relationship duration. J Sex Med. 2011;8:123–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01909.x.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Malary M, Pourasghar M, Khani S, Moosazadeh M, Hamzehgardeshi Z. Psychometric properties of the sexual interest and desire inventory-female for diagnosis of hypoactive sexual desire disorder: the Persian version. Iran J Psychiatry. 2016;11(4):262–8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5206330/.PubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013.

30.

Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.

31.

Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assessment, Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.

32.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2013.

33.

Gaskin CJ, Happell B. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:511–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, Maccallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. 1999;4(3):272–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.CrossRef

35.

Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Repairing tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Underst Stat. 2003;2:13–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02.CrossRef

36.

Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2016;32:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664.CrossRef

37.

Gorsuch RL. Common factor analysis versus component analysis: some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behav Res. 1990;25:33–9. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Gorsuch RL. Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. J Pers Assess. 1997;68:532–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Gaskin CJ, Happell B. Power, effects, confidence, and significance: an investigation of statistical practices in nursing research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:795–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.014.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Izquierdo I, Olea J, Abad F. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: uses and recommendations. Psicothema. 2014;26(3):395–400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349. CrossRefPubMed

41.

Furr M, Bacharach V. Psychometrics : an introduction. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2014.

42.

Widaman KF. Common factors versus components: principals and principles, errors and misconceptions. In: R. Cudeck, & R. C. MacCallum (Eds.).Factor analysis at 100: historical developments and future directions. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2007. p.177–203.

43.

Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1958;23:187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233.CrossRef

44.

Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16:209–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7:191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675.CrossRef

47.

Machado W de L, Damásio BF, Borsa JC, da SJP. Dimensionalidade da escala de estresse percebido (Perceived Stress Scale, PSS-10) em uma amostra de professores. Psicol Reflexão e Crítica. 2014;27:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722014000100005.CrossRef

48.

Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non- normal Likert variables. Br J Mat Stat Psychol. 1985;171:171–89.CrossRef

49.

Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non- normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Mat Stat Psychol. 1992;45(1):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x.CrossRef

50.

Cho S-J, Li F, Bandalos D. Accuracy of the parallel analysis procedure with Polychoric correlations. Educ Psychol Meas. 2009;69:748–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332229.CrossRef

51.

Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Qual Quant. 2010;44:153–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y.CrossRef

52.

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales : a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef

53.

Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74:107–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.CrossRef

55.

Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016;7:769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Panayides P, Walker MJ. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the foreign language classroom anxiety scale for Cypriot senior high school EFL students: the Rasch measurement approach. Eur J Psychol. 2013;9:493–516.CrossRef

57.

Harbison JJM, Graham PJ, Quinn JT, McAllister H, Woodward R. A questionnaire measure of sexual interest. Arch Sex Behav. 1974;3:357–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01636441.CrossRefPubMed

58.

DeVellis RF. Scale development : theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.

59.

Berchtold A. Test–retest: agreement or reliability? Methodol Innov. 2016;9:205979911667287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116672875.CrossRef

60.

Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2^nd ed. New York London : Guilford Press; 2015.

61.

Rebustini F, Balbinotti MAA, Ferretti-Rebustini RE, Machado AA. Sport psychometry, participants and invariance: a critical review. J Phys Educ 2016;27 e2760:1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v27i1.2760.

62.

Wilson GD. The secrets of sexual fantasy. London: J. M. Dent & Sons ltd.; 1978.

63.

Wilson GD, Lang RJ. Sex differences in sexual fantasy patterns. Pers Individ Dif. 1981;2:343–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(81)90093-3.CrossRef

64.

Wilson GD. Measurement of sex fantasy. Sex Marital Ther. 1988;3:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674658808407692.CrossRef

65.

Sierra J, Martin-Ortiz J, Ortega V. Propiedades psicometrícas del cuestionario de Wilson de fantasias sexuales. Rev Mex Psicol. 2004;21(1):37–50.

66.

Sierra JC, Ortega V, Zubeidat I. Confirmatory factor analysis of a Spanish version of the sex fantasy questionnaire: assessing gender differences. J Sex Marital Ther. 2006;32:137–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230500442318.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Clayton AH, Segraves RT, Bakish D, Goldmeier D, Tignol J, van Lunsen RHW, et al. Cutoff score of the sexual interest and desire inventory-female for diagnosis of hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Womens Heal. 2010;19:2191–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.1995.CrossRef

68.

Clayton AH, Goldmeier D, Nappi RE, Wunderlich G, Lewis-D’Agostino DJ, Pyke R. Validation of the sexual interest and desire inventory-female in hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Med. 2010;7:3918–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02016.x.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Toledano R, Pfaus J. Original research-outcomes assessment: the sexual arousal and desire inventory (SADI): a multidimensional scale to assess subjective sexual arousal and desire. J Sex Med. 2006;3:853–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00293.x.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments to measure sexual desire
Authors: Denisse Cartagena-Ramos
Miguel Fuentealba-Torres
Flávio Rebustini
Ana Carolina Andrade Biaggi Leite
Willyane de Andrade Alvarenga
Ricardo Alexandre Arcêncio
Rosana Aparecida Spadoti Dantas
Lucila Castanheira Nascimento
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0570-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments to measure sexual desire

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Exploring the impact of public health teams on alcohol premises licensing in England and Scotland (ExILEnS): procotol for a mixed methods natural experiment evaluation

Pure intervention effect or effect in routine health care - blinded or non-blinded randomized controlled trial

Pragmatism in practice: lessons learned during screening and enrollment for a randomised controlled trial in rural northern Ethiopia

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease before and after PRISMA introduction

Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation

Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility