Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index, Male Sexual Function Index, and Profile of Female Sexual Function for Use in Healthy Young Adults

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past research has typically used clinical samples to evaluate the validity of sexual function measures. As normal variations in sexually healthy individuals are of important research and clinical interest, evaluating the applicability of common sexual function measures to these populations is important. Factor structures of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Male Sexual Function Index (MSFI) (adapted for this investigation), and Profile of Female Sexual Function (PFSF) were examined in young, healthy men and women. We predicted the factor structures to be consistent with past evaluations. In a cross-sectional study, 1,258 participants (M age = 19.56 years; 59 % women) completed these measures. Confirmatory factor analyses did not initially support the factor structures. However, factor loadings showed marked differences between positively and negatively worded items. As such, each measure’s factor structure was tested using multi-trait multi-method confirmatory factor analysis which accounted for variance due to item valence. These models supported the predicted structures of the FSFI and MSFI, whereas the PFSF’s Responsiveness scale required modification, resulting in an Avoidance scale for both genders. This study was one of few to validate the FSFI in young, healthy adults and the first to examine the MSFI and PFSF in these populations. Additionally, this investigation was the first to propose a reconceptualization of the PFSF Responsiveness scale into an Avoidance scale. Lastly, our study highlights the significant impact of item valence on how individuals respond to questions regarding their sexual functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Though we hypothesize that the factor structures will be the same across men and women, we do not mean to imply that sexual functioning is the same for both genders. Rather, factor analyses regard the structure of the measure and the way in which items are correlated with one another and we predicted that item correlations would be similar for both men and women.

  2. Carvalho et al. (2012) showed that desire and arousal were distinct in non-clinical women whereas they were unitary in clinical women. To examine if we were able to replicate their findings, we also ran a separate MTMM CFA with desire and arousal combined into a single construct. When comparing the models, analyses revealed desire and arousal to be distinct constructs, ∆χ2(5) = 134.77, p < .001. These analyses are consistent with Carvalho et al.’s findings regarding non-clinical women.

  3. Carvalho et al.’s (2012) examination of the FSFI showed that desire and arousal were distinct in non-clinical women whereas they were unitary in clinical women. To examine if we were able to replicate their findings in our sample of non-clinical men, we also ran a separate MTMM CFA with desire and arousal combined into a single construct. Comparison of the models provided empirical evidence of the distinction between desire and arousal, Δχ2(4) = 30.46, p < .001.

  4. It is important to clarify that our findings do not imply that sexual functioning is the same for both sexes or that there is a singular, unisex model of sexual functioning. In summary, our findings showed that the structure of the measures and the manner in which these items correlated with one another were similar for men and women. For reasons previously outlined, we initially used the female models as a priori models and found that they applied to men as well. If these structural models of the measures did not fit men, then our analyses would not have supported them and the MTMM CFAs would not have worked.

References

  • Borello-France, D., Dusi, J., O’Leary, M., Misplay, S., Okonski, J., Leng, W., … Chancellor, M. (2008). Test-retest reliability of the urge-urinary distress inventory and Female Sexual Function Index in women with multiple sclerosis. Urologic Nursing, 28, 30–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brotto, L. A. (2009). The Female Sexual Function Index [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 35, 161–163. doi:10.1080/00926230802712327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, S., Moreira, A., Rosado, M., Correia, D., Maia, D., & Pimentel, P. (2011). Female premature orgasm: Does this exist? Sexologies, 20, 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2011.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, J., Vieira, A. L., & Nobre, P. (2012). Latent structures of female sexual functioning. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 907–917. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9865-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., Binik, Y. M., & Carrier, S. (2009). Sexual dysfunction and pelvic pain in men: A male sexual pain disorder? Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 35, 182–205. doi:10.1080/00926230802716310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeRogatis, L. R., Rust, J., Golombok, S., Bouchard, C., Nachtigall, L., Rodenberg, C., … McHorney, C. A. (2004). Validation of the Profile of Female Sexual Function (PFSF) in surgically and naturally menopausal women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 30, 25–36. doi:10.1080/00926230490247183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. M., Croft, P. R., & Hackett, G. I. (1999). Association of sexual problems with social, psychological, and physical problems in men and women: A cross sectional population survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 144–148. doi:10.1136/jech.53.3.144.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–298. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmbach, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., Janata, J. W., & Kingsberg, S. A. (2012). Specificity of anhedonic depression and anxious arousal with sexual problems among sexually healthy young adults. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 505–513. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02533.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, S. H., Dickens, S. E., Eisfeld, B. S., & Bagby, R. M. (1999). Sexual dysfunction before antidepressant therapy in major depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 56, 201–208. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(99)00050-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsberg, S. A., & Althof, S. E. (2011). Satisfying sexual events as outcome measures in clinical trial of female sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 3262–3270. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02447.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171–207). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 537–544. doi:10.1001/jama.281.6.537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, S. B. (2003). The nature of sexual desire: A clinician’s perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 279–285. doi:10.1023/A:1023421819465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Likes, W. M., Stegbauer, C., Hathaway, D., Brown, C., & Tillmanns, T. (2006). Use of the Female Sexual Function Index in women with vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 255–266. doi:10.1080/00926230600575348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luzzi, G. A., & Law, L. A. (2006). The male sexual pain syndromes. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 17, 720–726. doi:10.1258/095646206778691220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masheb, R. M., Lozano-Blanco, C., Kohorn, E. I., Minkin, M. J., & Kerns, R. D. (2004). Assessing sexual function and dyspareunia with the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women with vulvodynia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 30, 315–324. doi:10.1080/00926230490463264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McHorney, C. A., Rush, J., Golombok, S., Davis, S., Bouchard, C., Brown, C., … DeRogatis, L. (2004). Profile of Female Sexual Function: A patient-based, international, psychometric instrument for the assessment of hypoactive sexual desire in oophorectomized women. Menopause, 11, 474–483. doi:10.1080/00926230490247183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M. (2003). Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women with female orgasmic disorder and in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 29, 39–46. doi:10.1080/713847100.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & Dolezal, C. (2007). The Female Sexual Function Index: A methodological critique and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 33, 217–224. doi:10.1080/00926230701267852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Opperman, E. A., Benson, L. E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Female Sexual Function Index. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 29–36. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.628423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. C. (2000). Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction in men and women. Current Psychiatry Reports, 2, 189–195. doi:10.1007/s11920-996-0006-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. C., & Bachmann, G. A. (2008). Sexual well-being, happiness, and satisfaction, in women: The case for a new conceptual paradigm. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 34, 291–297. doi:10.1080/00926230802096234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C., Brown, J., Heiman, S., Leiblum, C., Meston, R., Shabsigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208. doi:10.1080/009262300278597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verit, F. F., & Verit, A. (2007). Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index in women with chronic pelvic pain. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 1635–1641. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00604.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegel, M., Meston, C., & Rosen, R. (2005). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): Cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31, 1–20. doi:10.1080/00926230590475206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present study was supported by Kent State University and approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board. Data collection was performed by David A. Kalmbach, Adrijana Blazevic, Lindsey Johnson, and Katharina Leube. Study design, analyses, and interpretation were sole product of the co-authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    David A. Kalmbach & Jeffrey A. Ciesla

  2. Sleep and Chronophysiology Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    David A. Kalmbach

  3. Departments of Reproductive Biology and Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jeffrey W. Janata & Sheryl A. Kingsberg

Authors
  1. David A. Kalmbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey A. Ciesla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey W. Janata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheryl A. Kingsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Kalmbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalmbach, D.A., Ciesla, J.A., Janata, J.W. et al. The Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index, Male Sexual Function Index, and Profile of Female Sexual Function for Use in Healthy Young Adults. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1651–1662 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0334-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0334-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation