Validation of the French sexual mindfulness measure and its links with psychosexual well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited instruments are available to assess sexual mindfulness (i.e., state of mindfulness during sexual interactions) and understand its links with psychosexual well-being. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a French version of the Sexual Mindfulness Measure (SMM) (Leavitt et al., 2019 Leavitt, C. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Waterman, E. A. (2019). The role of sexual mindfulness in sexual wellbeing, Relational wellbeing, and self-esteem. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45(6), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1572680[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and its relation to psychosexual outcomes (e.g., body image, sexual communication). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with a community sample of 541 adults (M age= 36.82, SD = 11.78). The factorial structure of the original English version of the SMM was replicated, and satisfactory internal consistency was found, suggesting that the French SMM can be considered a valid measure to capture sexual mindfulness in research and clinical settings. Results showed significant linear regressions with expected psychosexual outcomes, which suggests that increased sexual mindfulness could improve psychosexual well-being.Lay summary: This study presents the validation of a questionnaire measuring sexual mindfulness - the level of awareness and nonjudgment during sexual interactions. Findings support the validity of the questionnaire to measure sexual mindfulness in clinical and research settings; it also suggests that sexual mindfulness may predict sexual higher self-esteem and body image, and lower anxiety towards sexual communication.
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 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".