Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Female Sexual Function Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Female Sexual Functioning Index (Rosen et al., 2000 Rosen , R. , Brown , C. , Heiman , J. , Leiblum , S. , Meston , C. , et al.. (2000). The female sexual function index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy , 26, 191–208.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) was designed to assess the key dimensions of female sexual functioning using six domains: desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain. A full-scale score was proposed to represent women's overall sexual function. The fifth revision to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is currently underway and includes a proposal to combine desire and arousal problems. The objective of this article was to evaluate and compare four models of the Female Sexual Functioning Index: (a) single-factor model, (b) six-factor model, (c) second-order factor model, and (4) five-factor model combining the desire and arousal subscales. Cross-sectional and observational data from 85 women were used to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis on the Female Sexual Functioning Index. Local and global goodness-of-fit measures, the chi-square test of differences, squared multiple correlations, and regression weights were used. The single-factor model fit was not acceptable. The original six-factor model was confirmed, and good model fit was found for the second-order and five-factor models. Delta chi-square tests of differences supported best fit for the six-factor model validating usage of the six domains. However, when revisions are made to the DSM-5, the Female Sexual Functioning Index can adapt to reflect these changes and remain a valid assessment tool for women's sexual functioning, as the five-factor structure was also supported.
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 | 0.027 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".