Validation of the Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory-Female in Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory-Female (SIDI-F) is a 13-item scale developed as a clinician-administered assessment tool to measure hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) severity in women. AIM: To estimate the reliability and validity of the SIDI-F as a measure of HSDD severity. METHODS: Women, aged 18-65 years, with primary HSDD, Female Sexual Arousal Disorder (FSAD), or no Female Sexual Dysfunction (no FSD) participated in two nontreatment studies (in North America and Europe). On days 0 and 28, subjects were assessed using the SIDI-F, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire-Female (CSFQ-F), Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discriminant validity, convergent validity, divergent validity, test-retest validity, and internal consistency of the SIDI-F. RESULTS: The North American study enrolled women with HSDD (N = 113), FSAD (N = 49) and no FSD (N = 61); the European study enrolled women with HSDD (N = 130) and no FSD (N = 124). In both studies, mean SIDI-F total score for women with HSDD was lower than for those with no FSD (P < 0.001, for all) demonstrating discriminant validity. Further, mean SIDI-F total score for women with HSDD was lower than for those with FSAD in the North American study (P < 0.001). Convergent validity with the FSFI and CSFQ-F and divergent validity with MAT were demonstrated. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were high. CONCLUSIONS: The SIDI-F is a valid and reliable measure of HSDD severity in women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".