MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585691063 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.12.006

Validation of a Self-Report Questionnaire Assessing the Bodily and Physiological Sensations of Orgasm

2017· article· en· W2585691063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmPsychologyCronbach's alphaReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologySexual dysfunctionPsychometricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite a plethora of research on sexual functioning during the past decades, the field is still lacking standardized measurements specifically characterizing orgasm. Although several validated tools are available to assess sexual function in healthy and clinical populations, items on orgasm are limited to frequency or dichotomous responses. A neurophysiologic model of orgasm developed from previous research in able-bodied and spinally injured populations offers a promising framework for the construction of a new questionnaire. AIM: To develop and validate a brief self-report measurement of orgasm by the assessment of bodily and physiologic sensations perceived during climax by able-bodied individuals. Although the currently available tool focuses on the phenomenological sensations associated with climax, the goal of this questionnaire was to capture the more specific genital and extragenital sensations associated with orgasm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The current Bodily Sensations of Orgasm questionnaire and the Orgasm Rating Scale. METHODS: Data from previous research conducted on individuals with spinal cord injury and the available empirical literature provided a pool of 45 items organized into four categories, which were reviewed by an expert panel. Upon review, a 28-item questionnaire was created and administered to a community sample of 227 participants, including men and women, 18 to 73 years old. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses supported the four-factor model, in which orgasm is comprised of extragenital sensations, genital sensations and spasms, nociceptive sensations, and sweating responses. Overall, a high degree of internal consistency was found for the final 22-item questionnaire (Cronbach α = 0.87), with individual reliability coefficients showing moderate to high internal consistency (r = 0.65-0.79) for each dimension. Overall temporal stability of the measurement was acceptable (r = 0.74). Using the Orgasm Rating Scale, satisfying convergent validity was confirmed, thereby indicating that the two measurements are complementary. CONCLUSION: The Bodily Sensations of Orgasm questionnaire allows for a brief evaluation of the physical and physiologic sensations associated with orgasm. Findings also suggest perceptual differences between men and women with regard to climax, with women reporting a larger repertoire of climactic sensations during orgasm.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.292 · 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