Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Item and instrument development to assess sexual function and satisfaction in outcomes research

  • IUGA Female Sexual Dysfunction Roundtable 2008
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article looks at two of the major issues associated with the development of condition-specific quality of life measures. The first issue is the process of conceptualization. The importance of conceptualization to developing sound questions and instruments is evaluated, and the need to utilize multiple perspectives in the conceptualization process is discussed. The second issue addressed is fundamentals of writing survey questions. Questions from a range of sexual function questionnaires are presented and discussed relative to seven basic guidelines associated with question and response category development.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rockwood T, Constantine M (2005) Demographic and psychosocial factors. Understanding health care outcomes research. Kane RL, Gaithersburg MD, Aspen

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rockwood T (2005) Quality of life with urinary and fecal incontinence. Urinary and Fecal Incontinence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. In: Becker HD, Stenzl A, Wallwiender D, Zittel TT (eds) Springer, Berlin, pp 369-384

  3. Rockwood TH (2004) Incontinence severity and QOL scales for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(1 Suppl 1):S106–S113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak D, Villarreal A, Coates K, Qualls C (2001) A new instrument to measure sexual function in women with urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(4):552–558

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Groves RM (1989) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  7. Payne SLB (1951) The art of asking questions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fowler FJ (1995) Improving survey questions: design and evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sudman S, Bradburn NM (1996) Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  10. Willis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maaita M, Bhaumik J, Davies AE (2002) Sexual function after using tension-free vaginal tape for the surgical treatment of genuine stress incontinence. BJU Int 90(6):540–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rust J, Golombok S (1985) The handbook of the Golombok–Rust inventory of sexual satisfaction. NFER-Nelson, Windsor

    Google Scholar 

  13. White CB (1982) A scale for the assessment of attitudes and knowledge regarding sexuality in the aged. Arch Sex Beh 11(6):491–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwarz N, Sudman S (1992) Context effects in social and psychological research. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sirken MG, Herrmann DJ (1999) Cognition and survey research. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vail-Smith K, Durham TW et al (1992) A scale to measure embarrassment associated with condom use. J Health Ed 29:209–214

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hochstim JR (1967) A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. J Am Stat Assoc 62(319):976–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Biemer PP, Groves RM (1991) Measurement errors in surveys. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stuber J, Galea S et al (2008) Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Soc Sci Med 67(3):420–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bradburn NM, Sudman S (1979) Improving interview method and questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rockwood TH, Sangster RL (1997) The effect of response categories on questionnaire answers: context and mode effects. Sociol Methods Res 26(1):118–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwarz N, Hippler H-J et al (1985) Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opin Q 49:388–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor JF, Rosen RC, Leiblum SR (1994) Self-report assessment of female sexual function: psychometric evaluation of the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning for Women. Arch Sex Beh 23(6):627–643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Alwin DF, Krosnick JA (1991) The reliability of survey attitude measurement: the influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociol Methods Res 20(1):139–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwarz N, Knauper B et al (1991) Rating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly 55(4):570–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alwin DF (1997) Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: which are better? Sociol Methods Res 25(3):318–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schuman H, Presser S (1996) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments on question form, wording, and context. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lyberg L, Biemer P (1997) Survey measurement and process quality. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd Rockwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rockwood, T., Constantine, M. Item and instrument development to assess sexual function and satisfaction in outcomes research. Int Urogynecol J 20 (Suppl 1), 57–64 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0842-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0842-9

Keywords

Navigation