Accurately Assessing Gay Men’s Erectile Functioning: A Critique of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Use with Gay Men
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Index of Erectile Functioning (IIEF) has been widely used to measure gay men's erectile functioning. However, the IIEF was initially developed using a sample of men whose sexual orientation was unspecified. Using scales not validated for specific populations can result in inaccurate assessments. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the IIEF with a large sample of gay men. One thousand and eighteen men self-identifying as "exclusively gay" completed an online survey consisting of demographics, the IIEF, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Perceived Stress Scale 4 (PSS4), and the Gay Male Sexual Difficulties (GMSD) erectile difficulties sub-scale. The replicability of the IIEF factor structure with a gay male sample was determined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Additionally, the HADS, PSS4, and GMSD were used to determine the validity of the IIEF. The current study was unable to replicate the IIEF factor structure. Four items required deletion and the factor solution differed from the original. Thus, reinterpretation of the latent variables was deemed necessary. Although the resultant 12-item IIEF evidenced model fit, validity, and reliability, it is not recommended for use with gay men. The revised IIEF is unable to accurately measure gay men's erectile functioning as the content of the items fail to capture their sexual behaviors (i.e., insertive and receptive anal sex).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it