Background
For years, there has been interest in sexual dysfunction and its impact on quality of life but usually focused on one gender. Therapeutic options that became available raised the interest to evaluate effects on the other partner but there is no standardized instrument applicable for both genders. This paper reports first data regarding the development of a new general “Quality of Sexual Function” (QSF) scale.
Methods
The raw scale was based on our own gender-specific scales and the pertinent literature. The scale was applied in over 700 persons of a cross-sectional survey in Germany. Factorial analyses were performed to describe the internal structure (domains) of the scale and for item reduction. Internal consistency reliability and some aspects of validity were analyzed with the same community sample preliminary reference values determined.
Results
The scale consists of 32 specific items and eight general questions. Four dimensions were identified: “psycho-somatic quality of life,”“sexual activity,”“sexual (dys)function—self-reflection,” and “sexual (dys)function—partner's view.” The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the total scale and the subscales were good as were the total–domain correlations. Content validity was promising.
Conclusion
This self-administrable 40-item QSF scale can measure and compare quality of sexual function for both genders. The scale was well accepted by the respondents. It is easy to answer and the evaluation is simple. Only a few results of reliability and validity have been established in this early stage of the development of the new instrument. Further research is needed to complete many missing aspects of reliability and the construct validity, particular its sensitivity to treatment effects.
The processing of faces relies on a specialized neural system comprising bilateral cortical structures with a dominance of the right hemisphere. However, due to inconsistencies of earlier findings as well as more recent results such functional lateralization has become a topic of discussion. In particular, studies employing behavioural tasks and electrophysiological methods indicate a dominance of the right hemisphere during face perception only in men whereas women exhibit symmetric and bilateral face processing. The aim of this study was to further investigate such sex differences in hemispheric processing of personally familiar and opposite-sex faces using whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG). We found a right-lateralized M170-component in occipito-temporal sensor clusters in men as opposed to a bilateral response in women. Furthermore, the same pattern was obtained in performing dipole localization and determining dipole strength in the M170-timewindow. These results suggest asymmetric involvement of face-responsive neural structures in men and allow to ascribe this asymmetry to the fusiform gyrus. This specifies findings from previous investigations employing event-related potentials (ERP) and LORETA reconstruction methods yielding rather extended bilateral activations showing left asymmetry in women and right lateralization in men. We discuss our finding of an asymmetric fusiform activation pattern in men in terms of holistic face processing during face evaluation and sex differences with regard to visual strategies in general and interest for opposite faces in special. Taken together the pattern of hemispheric specialization observed here yields new insights into sex differences in face perception and entails further questions about interactions between biological sex, psychological gender and influences that might be stimulus-driven or task dependent.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.