Scale for Quality of Sexual Function (QSF) as an Outcome Measure for Both Genders?

Abstract

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.

Development and Evaluation of Korean Version of Quality of Sexual Function (QSF-K) in Healthy Korean Women

“…In this study, the ICC was in the acceptable range for two domains, the psycho-somatic quality of life (0.69) and sexual activity (0.62), but not for the sexual (dys)function-self-reflection (0.52) and sexual (dys)function-partner's view (0.52). The sexual (dys)function-self-reflection domain measures the perception of personal problems in sexual functions (11), and sexual (dys)function-partner's view domain measures sexual problems that participant believed her partner perceived (11). This might be due to real changes in sexual (dys)function-self-reflection and sexual (dys)function-partner's view over time.…”

“…The QSF is self-report questionnaire developed by Heinemann et al in 2005 and composed of 40 items including 32 items specific to 4 domains and 8 general questions (11). The four domains are psycho-somatic quality of life (QOL), 13 items; sexual activity (ACT), 7 items; sexual (dys)function-self-reflection (SDFS), 7 items; and sexual (dys)function-partner's view (SDFP), 5 items.…”

“…Therefore, the quality of life and sexuality cannot be compared between populations with different characteristics or between men and women. The Quality of Sexual Function (QSF) was developed to overcome such limitations (11). It measures the sexuality and quality of life at the same time, takes a short time to complete, and is easily understood (11).…”

“…The Quality of Sexual Function (QSF) was developed to overcome such limitations (11). It measures the sexuality and quality of life at the same time, takes a short time to complete, and is easily understood (11). The QSF can be used for women and men.…”

Evaluating and Refining the Construct of Sexual Quality With Item Response Theory: Development of the Quality of Sex Inventory

“…These excluded scales included the Monash Women's Health Program Female Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire (Davison, Bell, La Chine, Holden, & Davis, 2008), the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (Derogatis&Melisaratos,1979),Eysenck'sInventoryofAttitudestoSex (Eysenck, 1970), the Quality of Sexual Function scale (Heinemann, Potthoff, Heinemann, Pauls, Ahlers, & Saad, 2005), the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen, 2011), the Sexual Interaction Inventory (LoPiccolo & Steger, 1974), the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (Meston & Trapnell, 2005), the Modified Rush Sexual Inventory (Rao, Zajecka, & Skubiak, 2005), the Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (Rust & Golombok, 1986), the Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire (Snell, Fisher, & Walters, 1993), the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (Stulhofer et al, 2010), and the Whitley Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (Whitley & Poulsen, 1975). Thus, in an effort to reduce participant burden and to focus on our more specific conceptual definition, the current study examined four short and well-validated measures of sexual quality, focusing on scales that are primarily used in relationship research and are freely available for research use.…”