MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811301902 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.015

Psychometric Validation of the Sexual Distress Scale in Men with Prostate Cancer

2018· article· en· W2811301902 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Santos‐Iglesias, Lauren M. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressClinical psychologySexual functionPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Different scales exist for the assessment of sexual distress in men with prostate cancer (PCa); however, these measures narrowly focus on distress associated with sexual function. AIM: To validate and examine the psychometric properties of the Sexual Distress Scale (SDS) and Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (SDS-R), which were recently validated for use within men, in samples of sexually functional and sexually dysfunctional men with PCa. METHODS: A sample of 538 men (with and without PCa and with and without sexual dysfunction) were used to examine the psychometric properties of the SDS. Confirmatory factor analysis followed by tests of measurement bias, calculations of reliability, and estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to examine the psychometric properties of the SDS and SDS-R. A subsample of 321 men completed the survey again 1 month later, and their responses were used to examine test-retest reliability. OUTCOMES: Participants completed the SDS and SDS-R, as well as measures of sexual bother and sexual concerns, sexual function, sexual attitudes, and mood states. RESULTS: The SDS and SDS-R assess 1 general domain of sexual distress; 1 violation of measurement invariance was found between men with and men without PCa, which limits the comparability of scores between these 2 groups. Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were above 0.93 and 0.82, respectively. Evidences of validity based on relations with other variables supported our predictions because sexual distress was associated with other measures of distress, sexual function, satisfaction, and mood and not correlated to sexual attitudes. Although the SDS and SDS-R discriminated between sexually functional and dysfunctional men, the accuracy of the cutoff scores was only moderate. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: This instrument can be used by researchers and clinicians to examine sexual distress and can be used to elucidate how sexual distress relates to sexual function, well-being, and quality of life. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The SDS and SDS-R assess sexual distress independently of sexual function; however, with the current evidence, they should not be used to compare men with and men without PCa and to classify men with and men without sexual dysfunction. CONCLUSION: This study provides a validation of the SDS and SDS-R that can be used in samples of men with PCa and with and without sexual dysfunction for the assessment of distress. Santos-Iglesias P, Walker LM. Psychometric Validation of the Sexual Distress Scale in Men with Prostate Cancer. J Sex Med 2018;15:1010-1020.

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)0.015
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
Metaresearch0.0060.015
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
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

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207