Psychometric Properties of Common Measures of Hypersexuality in an Online Canadian Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypersexuality has been posited as the central defining feature of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder, and although the acceptance and inclusion of this construct in psychiatric nosologies provides some legitimacy, concerns surrounding terminology, assessment, and diagnosis remain. AIM: The present study was an independent psychometric examination of 2 of the most commonly used measures of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder; specifically, the gender invariance of the latent structure, reliability (test retest, internal consistency), and external correlates (concurrent validity) of these measures. METHODS: The Sexual Compulsivity Scale and the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory were completed by 2 nonclinical online community samples of cisgender women (ns = 525 and 359), cisgender men (ns = 419 and 364), and transgender or non-binary individuals (ns = 38 and 11). OUTCOMES: Criterion based measures of sexual history and total sexual outlet (number of orgasms per week) were gathered to validate Sexual Compulsivity Scale and Hypersexual Behavior Inventory total and factor scores. RESULTS: Results supported the factorial validity of both assessment measures: correlated 3 factor solutions were established through exploratory factor analysis of 1 sample, and confirmatory factor analysis in the second sample. Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, conducted on the 2 combined samples, also supported the gender invariance of the 3-factor solutions. Additional basic psychometric indices of test-retest and internal consistency reliability and criterion-related (concurrent) validity conducted across the 2 online samples were supported. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Common measures of hypersexuality have potential for use in its assessment, treatment, and management. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Study strengths include: the inclusion of 2 fairly large and diverse online samples, thorough checks for insufficient effort/validity of responding, validity and reliability methodology (ie, measurement at multiple time points, obtaining behavioral indicators of sexual health), and a comprehensive set of psychometric analyses to inform conclusions regarding the external validity, reliability, and latent structure of hypersexuality measures across gender groups. Study limitations include: potential concerns related to validity and accuracy of responding owing to a reliance on self-report, the potential for selection bias, and limiting the examination of the latent structure of hypersexuality to cisgender men and women such that the results may not generalize to gender diverse populations. CONCLUSION: Hypersexuality is a multidimensional construct, with a common latent structure among cisgender men and women, consistency in measurement over time, and meaningful concurrent associations with behavioral criteria that have relevance for sexual health. Olver ME, Kingston DA, Laverty EK, et al. Psychometric Properties of Common Measures of Hypersexuality in an Online Canadian Sample. J Sex Med 2022;19:331-346.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".