Psychometric properties of the Female Sexual Function Index in the visual analogue scale format
Raquel E. Wolpe A C , Ana P. A. Queiroz B , Kamilla Zomkowski B and Fabiana F. Sperandio A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Health Sciences and Sports Center (CEFID), Women’s Health Laboratory, Rua Paschoal Simone, 358 Coqueiros, CEP 88080-350, Florianópolis (SC), Brazil.
B Physical Therapy, Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Rua Paschoal Simone, 358 Coqueiros, CEP 88080-350, Florianópolis (SC), Brazil.
C Corresponding author. Email: raquel.wolpe@udesc.br
Sexual Health 14(3) 213-220 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH16131
Submitted: 24 June 2015 Accepted: 18 December 2016 Published: 7 April 2017
Abstract
The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) is the gold standard for evaluating female sexual function, yet it has not been validated in a visual analogue scale (VAS) format. The aim of the present study was to assess the psychometric properties of the FSFI applied to the VAS. Methods: The study was conducted in three phases. In Phase 1, the instrument was adapted by two independent researchers, generating two versions, which were evaluated by a committee of six experts. The FSFI-VAS, resulting from this first phase, was used in a pilot study with 45 women. In Phase 2, the FSFI-Likert (original format) and FSFI-VAS questionnaires were administered to 246 women recruited to the study. Tests of reproducibility (test–retest/phase 3), internal consistency, discriminant validity and construct validity were applied. Results: In Phase 1, the pilot study showed that there were no doubts and difficulties completing the FSFI-VAS. In Phase 2, the Spearman rank (validity) test showed high correlation between the total scores on the FSFI-Likert and FSFI-VAS (0.87). The results of the internal consistency test were between 0.66 and 0.88, and the results of the construct validity test indicated a good value (0.73). The discriminant validity test was also appropriate. In Phase 3, the lowest intraclass correlation coefficient value was 0.81. Conclusion: The FSFI-VAS has internal consistency, construct validity, discriminant validity and reproducibility adequate to assess female sexual dysfunction in young women.
Additional Keywords: adaptation, reproducibility of results, sexuality, surveys, validity testing.
References
[1] Abdo CHN. Sexual profile of Brazilian population: results from Brazilian Study of Sexual Behavior (BSSB). RBM 2002; 59 250–7.[2] Pacagnella RC, Vieira EM, Rodrigues OM, Souza C. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Female Sexual Function Index. Rep Public Health. 2008; 24 416–26.
[3] Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG. The use of visual analog scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 165–70.
| The use of visual analog scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] West SL, Vinikoor LC, Zolnoun D. A systematic review of the literature on female sexual dysfunction prevalence and predictors. Annu Rev Fri Res 2004; 15 40–172.
[5] Occhino JA, Trabuco EC, Heisler CA, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Validation of the visual analog scale form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire 12. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011; 17 246–8.
[6] Meadow DS, Mota VP, Lima IT. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women two groups of different socioeconomic status. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 32 139–43.
[7] Fakhri A, Pakpour AH, Burri A, Morshedi H, Zeidi IM. The Female Sexual Function Index: translation and validation of an Iranian version. J Sex Med 2012; 9 514–23.
| The Female Sexual Function Index: translation and validation of an Iranian version.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Sun X, Li C, Jin L, Fan Y, Wang D. Development and validation of Chinese version of female sexual function index in the Chinese population: a pilot study. J Sex Med 2011; 8 1101–11.
| Development and validation of Chinese version of female sexual function index in the Chinese population: a pilot study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, Ferguson D, D’Agostino R. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 2000; 26 191–208.
| The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ksVejug%3D%3D&md5=cbc96922d19d931c32f32079cb96cc9fCAS |
[10] Takahashi M, Inokuchi T, Watanabe C, Saito T, Kai I. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): development of the Japanese version. J Sex Med 2011; 8 2246–54.
| The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): development of the Japanese version.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Oksuz E, Malhan S. Reliability and validity of the Female Sexual Function Index in Turkish population. Sendrom 2005; 17 54–60.
[12] Sidi H, Abdullah N, Puteh SE, Midin M. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): validation of the Malay version. J Sex Med 2007; 4 1642–54.
| The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): validation of the Malay version.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Chang SR, Chang TC, Chen KH, Lin HH. Developing and validating a Taiwan version of the female sexual function index for pregnant women. J Sex Med 2009; 6 1609–16.
| Developing and validating a Taiwan version of the female sexual function index for pregnant women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Baser RE, Li Y, Carter J. Psychometric validation of the female sexual function index (FSFI) in cancer survivors. Cancer 2012; 118 4606–18.
| Psychometric validation of the female sexual function index (FSFI) in cancer survivors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Damast S, Alektiar KM, Goldfarb S, Eaton A, Patil S, Mosenkis J, Bennett A, Atkinson T, Jewell E, Leitao M, Barakat M, Carter J, Basch E. Sexual functioning among endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant high-dose-rate intravaginal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84 e187–93.
| Sexual functioning among endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant high-dose-rate intravaginal radiation therapy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Borello-France D, Cannon-Smith T, Dusi J, Misplay S, Okonski J, Chancellor M, O’Leary M, Leng W. Test–retest reliability of the Urge-Urinary Distress Inventory and Female Sexual Function Index in women with multiple sclerosis. Urol Nurs 2008; 28 30–5.
[17] Wiegel M, Meston C, Rosen R. The female sexual function index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. J Sex Marital Ther 2005; 31 1–20.
| The female sexual function index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Likert R. A technique for the development of attitude scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1952; 12 313–5.
[19] Hulley DB. Outlining clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. Art Med 2008; 3 384–95.
[20] Du Toit R, Pritchard N, Heffernan S, Simpson T, Fonn D. A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79 313–20.
| A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Svensson E. Concordance between ratings using different scales for the same variable. Stat Med 2000; 19 3483–96.
| Concordance between ratings using different scales for the same variable.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzgsVWltA%3D%3D&md5=bb7c121de46a7b665339c5b3e7ef8ef9CAS |
[22] Kerlinger FN. Foundations of behavioral research. São Paulo: Holt, Rinehard and Winston; 1986.
[23] Karmarrec S, Kabuth B, Bursztejn C, Suillemin F. French adaptation and validation of the helping alliance questionnaire for child, parents and therapist. Can J Psychiatry 2006; 51 913–22.
[24] Dancey CP, Reidy J. Bivariate correlations: strength or magnitude of the relationship. Statistics without maths for psychology in 2006. Porto Alegre: Anmcd. pp 264–273.
[25] Bengtsson M, Persson J, Sjolund K, Ohlsson B. Further validation of the visual analogue scale for irritable bowel syndrome after use in clinical practice. Gastroenterol Nurs 2013; 36 188–98.
| Further validation of the visual analogue scale for irritable bowel syndrome after use in clinical practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Facco E Stellini E Bacci C Manani G Pavan C Cavallin F Zanette G
[27] Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria for measurement properties were the proposed questionnaires of health status. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 34–42.
| Quality criteria for measurement properties were the proposed questionnaires of health status.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[28] Pasquali L. Psychometrics. Rev esc nurse USP 2009; 43 992–9.
| Psychometrics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[29] Ghassamia M, Asghari A, Shaeiri MR, Safarinejad MR. Validation of psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Female Sexual Function Index. Urol J 2013; 10 878–85.
[30] Wylomanski S, Bouquin R, Philippe HJ, Poulin Y, Hanf M, Dréno B, Rouzier R, Quéreux G. Psychometric properties of the French Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Qual Life Res 2014; 23 2079–87.
| Psychometric properties of the French Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[31] Burri A, Cherkas L, Spector T. Replication of psychometric properties of the FSFI and validation of a modified version (FSFI-LL) assessing lifelong sexual function in an unselected sample of females. J Sex Med 2010; 7 3929–39.
| Replication of psychometric properties of the FSFI and validation of a modified version (FSFI-LL) assessing lifelong sexual function in an unselected sample of females.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[32] Bartula I, Sherman KA. Screening for sexual dysfunction in women diagnosed with breast cancer: systematic review and recommendations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 141 173–85.
| Screening for sexual dysfunction in women diagnosed with breast cancer: systematic review and recommendations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[33] de Boer MK, Castelein S, Wiersma D, Schoevers RA, Knegtering H. A systematic review of instruments to measure sexual functioning in patients using antipsychotics. J Sex Res 2014; 51 383–9.
| A systematic review of instruments to measure sexual functioning in patients using antipsychotics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Burri A, Spector T. Recent and lifelong sexual dysfunction in the UK female population sample: prevalence and risk factors. J Sex Med 2011; 8 2420–30.
| Recent and lifelong sexual dysfunction in the UK female population sample: prevalence and risk factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[35] Vickers AJ. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15 709–16.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7gvFClsw%3D%3D&md5=da8cb9d242c28e870900162df80a9821CAS |
