Orgasm Rating Scale and Bodily Sensations of Orgasm Scale: Validation for Use with Pre, Peri, and Post-Menopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orgasm, particularly in older women, remains a poorly understood aspect of female sexual response partly because of a lack of validated self-report measures. AIM: To evaluate the Orgasm Rating Scale (ORS) and Bodily Sensations of Orgasm Scale (BSOS) for use with pre, peri, and post-menopausal women and between solitary and partnered orgasm contexts. METHODS: Participants (solitary context, 252 pre, 139 peri, 190 post; partnered context, 229 pre, 136 peri, and 194 post-menopausal women, aged 18-82 years) were asked to complete an online questionnaire based on most recent solitary and partnered orgasm. Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation summarized the data into interpretable baseline models for all groups. Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis tested for multi-group measurement invariance. Adjustments to the models were made, and final model structures were presented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ORS and BSOS measuring solitary and/or masturbation and partnered orgasm. RESULTS: For the ORS, 10 factor solutions were preferred, explaining 81% (pre), 80% (peri), and 81% (post) of the variance for the solitary and 83% (pre), 86% (peri), and 84% (post) of the variance for the partnered context. Factors included pleasurable satisfaction, ecstasy, emotional intimacy, relaxation, building sensations, flooding sensations, flushing sensations, shooting sensations, throbbing sensations, and general spasms. For the BSOS, 3 factor solutions were preferred, explaining 55% (pre), 60% (peri), and 56% (post) of the variance for the solitary and 56% (pre), 61% (peri), and 60% (post) of the variance for the partnered context. Factors included extragenital sensations, genital sensations and spasms, and nociceptive sensations and sweating responses. Divergent validity was observed (solitary r = -.04; partnered r = -.11) and configural, metric and scalar invariance for the solitary and partnered versions of the ORS and BSOS were found, suggesting the measures were interpreted similarly by all women. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: With valid measurement tools, women's varying orgasm experiences can be investigated more systematically and compared to address gaps and conflicts in the existing literature. Ultimately, these additions may assist with improved interventions for women who are unsatisfied with their orgasm experiences. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths include gaining the ability to compare age and menopausal status groups using empirically validated measures of orgasm experience. Limitations include cross-sectional design and lack of test-retest reliability measurement. CONCLUSION: The ORS and BSOS are supported for use with women across adulthood in solitary and partnered orgasm contexts and can be used concurrently to provide a comprehensive assessment. Webb AE, Reissing ED, Huta V. Orgasm Rating Scale and Bodily Sensations of Orgasm Scale: Validation for Use With Pre, Peri, and Post-Menopausal Women. J Sex Med 2022;19:1156-1172.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".