Evaluating romantic and sexual functioning among persons with psychosis: Reliability and validity of two measures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing recognition of the difficulties faced by persons with psychosis with respect to intimacy and sexuality, there is a lack of valid and reliable instruments to measure these areas of functioning in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties (i.e., construct and convergent validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability) of two measures, the Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Romantic Relationship Functioning Scale (RRFS), in a sample of individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. METHOD: = 196) were administered a series of questionnaires online, with a subset of 40 respondents agreeing to complete the MSQ and the RRFS a second time at a 2-week follow-up. Confirmatory factor analyses were employed to examine the construct validity of both measures, while internal consistency estimates and correlation coefficients were computed to assess each instrument's reliability and convergent validity. RESULTS: The original factor structures of the MSQ and the RRFS were found to be acceptable, with αs ranging from 0.68 to 0.94 and 0.74 to 0.86, respectively. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity with other measures (First-Episode Social Functioning Scale [FESFS]-Intimacy subscale, Self-Esteem Rating Scale-Short Form [SERS-SF], Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]-Anxiety and Depression subscales) were also demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Future research should replicate these findings in larger samples and other languages, as well as evaluate additional aspects of the instruments' quality. Clinicians may benefit from using these tools to better understand the intimacy needs of service users with psychosis and offer corresponding services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".