MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised for Assessing Distress in Women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder

2007· article· en· W1964663917 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard R. Derogatis, Anita H. Clayton, Diane J. Lewis-D’Agostino, Glen Wunderlich, Yali Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoactive sexual desire disorderCronbach's alphaDistressFemale sexual dysfunctionPsychologySexual desireSexual dysfunctionClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychometricsHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The concept of sexually related personal distress is currently central to the diagnosis of all female sexual dysfunctions (FSD). In the current study, we have focused on validating a slightly revised version of the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS), the FSDS-Revised (FSDS-R), to enhance the sensitivity of the instrument with patients suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). In addition, we have attempted to extend the validation generalizability of the scale by demonstrating that both instruments possess reliability and discriminative validity in premenopausal women with HSDD. AIM: To assess the validity of the revised version of the FSDS, the FSDS-R, for measuring sexual distress in women with HSDD. METHODS: A prospective methodological study carried out at 27 centers in North America enrolled 296 women aged 18-50 years with HSDD, another female sexual dysfunction (FSD), or no FSD. The subjects completed the FSDS-R at baseline, day 7, and day 28, with a 30-day recall at baseline and with a 7-day recall on days 7 and 28. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of FSDS, FSDS-R, and FSDS-R item 13 were used for the differentiation of HSDD from no FSD, while intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate test-retest reliability. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of the FSDS-R and Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess FSDS, FSDS-R, and FSDS-R item 13 with different recall periods (7 and 30 days). RESULTS: Mean total FSDS, FSDS-R, and FSDS-R item 13 scores with either recall period were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in women with FSD or HSDD than in women with no FSD, showing both tests had discriminant validity. ROC analysis confirmed these findings, while an ICC of >0.74 showed the test-retest reliability of both scales, including FSDS-R item 13 alone, and Cronbach's coefficient alpha of >0.86 confirmed the internal consistency of both tests. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the FSDS, the FSDS-R demonstrated good discriminant validity, high test-retest reliability, and a high degree of internal consistency in measuring sexually related personal distress in women with HSDD. FSDS-R item 13 alone also demonstrated good discriminant validity and test-retest reliability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations731
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207