Male Body Image Self-Consciousness During Physical Intimacy (M-BISC): Validating the M-BISC With Gay Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An expanding area of research within the realm of body image is its role in human sexual functioning, which denotes people's overall satisfaction with their performance during a specific sexual encounter. Traditionally, studies investigating the association between body image and sexual functioning have focused on women. The Male Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale (M-BISC) was developed to exclusively assess male body image self-consciousness during sexual activity using a sample consisting primarily of heterosexual men. AIM: The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the M-BISC with a sample of gay men. Research suggests that sexual difficulties and body image concerns can overlap and interrelate. Therefore, 2 subscales (erectile difficulties and body embarrassment) from the Gay Male Sexual Difficulties Scale (GMSDS) were used to assess the validity of the scale. METHODS: 1,930 men self-identifying as "exclusively gay" completed an online survey consisting of demographics, the M-BISC, and the GMSDS (erectile difficulties and body embarrassment subscales). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The replicability of the M-BISC factor structure with a gay male sample was determined using an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Additionally, the GMSDS (erectile difficulties and body embarrassment subscales) was used to determine the validity of the M-BISC. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that, following the removal of 3 items, the M-BISC was unidimensional. Scale score reliability for the 14-item M-BISC was good. Finally, as predicted, scores on the M-BISC correlated with scores on the GMSDS (ie, greater sexual difficulties). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results indicate that assessment scales developed using samples consisting primarily of heterosexual men may not be appropriate for use with gay men in their original form. Thus, limiting the accuracy of the measurement and increasing the risk of misdiagnoses. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include a large sample of exclusively gay men and the utilization of best-practice statistical analysis for assessing factor structure, validity, and reliability of measures. Limitations include the assumption that the M-BISC should be used in lieu of a novel scale developed exclusively for gay men. Further, the study utilizes an Internet sample consisting primarily of Caucasian gay men. CONCLUSION: Results of the current study illustrate that the M-BISC is a valid tool to measure gay men's body concerns during intimacy. More importantly, it also highlights gay men's elevated body concerns during intimacy and the need to understand the etiology of these apprehensions. Currently, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the cause of gay male body concerns that have potential clinic implications. Kiss MJ, Morrison TG, McDonagh LK. Male Body Image Self-Consciousness During Physical Intimacy (M-BISC): Validating the M-BISC With Gay Men. J Sex Med 2018;16:307-315.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".