Reliability and Validity of the Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory–Female (SIDI-F), a Scale Designed to Measure Severity of Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sexual Interest and Desire Inventory-Female (SIDI-F) is a 13-item scale developed as a clinician-administered assessment tool to quantify the severity of symptoms in women diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). The present investigation assessed the reliability and validity of the SIDI-F as a measure of HSDD severity. Results show that the SIDI-F exhibits excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha of 0.9. The validity of the SIDI-F as a measure of HSDD severity was confirmed by a number of observations. Women with a clinical diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000]) of HSDD had significantly lower SIDI-F scores than women not meeting diagnostic criteria for any subtype of female sexual dysfunction and women diagnosed with female orgasmic disorder. There was a high correlation between scores on the SIDI-F and scores on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI; Rosen et al., 2000) and an interactive voice response version of the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ; Clayton, McGarvey, & Clavet, 1997; Clayton, McGarvey, Clavet, & Piazza, 1997), two validated measures that assess general female sexual dysfunction. In contrast, there was a poor correlation between SIDI-F scores and scores on a slightly modified Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke, Wallace, 1959; MAS), an assessment of general (nonsexual) relationship satisfaction. Taken together, the results of the present investigation indicate that the SIDI-F is a reliable and valid measure of HSDD severity, independent of relationship issues.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".