Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women

  • Serpil Abali Cetin
  • Ergul Aslan
Original Paper


Although several validated sexual satisfaction scales are globally relevant, none has demonstrated sufficient validity and reliability for use in Turkish populations, particularly women. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (SSS-W) in the Turkish version. A descriptive study was conducted involving 300 women. The scale’s validity and reliability were analyzed in two phases: phase I involved the translation and adaptation of the scale into Turkish and pilot testing; and phase II involved psychometric assessment. Content validity index was calculated and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the scale’s validity. To establish reliability we calculated Cronbach’s alpha, item-total and subscale-total correlations, and test–retest reliability that indicated time invariance. The scale’s content validity was reviewed by eight experts. Construct validity was established via confirmatory factor analysis; item factor loadings ranged .71–.93. Item-total score correlations ranged .49–.82; item-subscale score correlations ranged .58–.88; and subscale-total score correlations ranged .55–.92. Statistically significant correlations were found between each of these results (p < .001). Cronbach’s alpha was .96 for the complete scale and ranged .89–.91 for subscales. The test–retest reliability analysis yielded no significant difference (p < .05). The results indicate that the Turkish version of the SSS-W is valid and reliable for determining sexual life quality in research and clinical practice.


Women Sexual satisfaction Psychometrics Validity Reliability Scale 


Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the development of the study framework, interpretation of the results, and revision of draft of the manuscript and approved the version submitted for publication. SAC conducted the data analyses. SAC and EA drafted the manuscript. EA finalized the manuscript with inputs from all authors.


This work was supported by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University (Project Number 16845).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures (surveys) performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards (ethics committee of the Istanbul University Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey reference number No. 1565). This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Basson, R. (2001). Female sexual response: The role of drugs in the management of sexual dysfunction. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 98, 350–352.Google Scholar
  2. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE, 25, 3186–3191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belanger, C., Laughrea, K., & Lafontaine, M. (2001). The impact of anger on sexual satisfaction in marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 10, 91–99.Google Scholar
  4. Byers, S. E. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. The Journal of Sexual Research, 42, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, E. D. (2000). A case study in translation methodology using the health-promotion lifestyle profile II. Public Health Nursing, 17, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 1019–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davison, S. L., Bell, R. J., LaChina, M., Holden, S. L., & Davis, S. R. (2009). The relationship between self-reported sexual satisfaction and general well-being in women. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 2690–2697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Dundon, C. M., & Rellini, A. H. (2010). More than sexual function: predictors of sexual satisfaction in a sample of women age 40–70. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 896–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erkut, S., Alarcon, O., Garcia Coll, C., Troop, L. R., & Vazguez Garcia, H. A. (1999). The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 30, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, R. D., Dennerstein, L., Bennett, C. M., & Fairley, C. K. (2008). What is the “true” prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions and does the way we assess these conditions have an impact? The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, R. M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Accessed December 3, 2017.
  15. Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S. M. (1993). Key variables to understanding female sexual satisfaction-an examination of women in non-distressed marriages. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 19, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laumann, E., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA, 281, 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationship, 2, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine, S. B. (1992). Sexual life: A clinician’s guide. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meston, C., & Trapnell, P. (2005). Development and validation of a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women: the sexual satisfaction scale for women (SSS-W). The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreira, E. D., Glasser, D. B., King, R., Duarte, F. G., Gingelli, C., & GSSAB Investigators’ Group. (2008). Sexual difficulties and help-seeking among mature adults in Australia: Results from the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviours. Sex Health, 5, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulhall, J., King, R., Glina, S., & Hvidsten, K. (2008). Importance of and satisfaction with sex among men and women worldwide: results of the Global Better Sex Survey. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 788–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Offman, A., & Matheson, K. (2005). Sexual compatibility and sexual functioning in intimate relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 14, 31–39.Google Scholar
  23. Pedersen, W., & Blekesaune, M. (2003). Sexual satisfaction in young adulthood: cohabitation, committed dating or unattached life? Acta Sociologica, 46, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  25. Sánchez-Fuentes, M. M., Santos-Iglesias, P., & Sierra, J. C. (2014). A systematic review of sexual satisfaction. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Women Health and Diseases Nursing, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health SciencesYeditepe UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Women Health and Diseases Nursing, Florence Nightingale Nursing FacultyIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations