Validation of the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale in Spanish Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale (SSSS; Kalichman, 2011) in Spanish samples. Two independent studies were conducted. In Study 1, we examined the factor structure of the SSSS in a sample of 1,272 heterosexual undergraduate students (40.0% men, 60.0% women). Results revealed a 2-factor structure. Factor 1 was related to physical sexual sensations and risky sexual behaviors and Factor 2 was related to exploratory or novel sex. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this factor structure in a sample of 373 community adults (33.8% men, 66.2% women). Two items were deleted, resulting in a final version composed of 8 items. This version showed good test-retest reliability and evidence of its concurrent validity. In Study 2, the factor structure was further confirmed in a sample of 1,596 university students (28.8% men, 71.2% women). More evidence of construct validity was provided, which revealed that higher levels of sexual sensation seeking were associated with more frequent sexual risk behaviors and poorer sexual health. Internal consistency reliability did not reach acceptable levels on all of the subscales. Results suggest that, although it has been used before, this scale needs a revision before its use in Spanish-speaking contexts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".