Time for a Measurement Check-Up: Testing the Couple’s Satisfaction Index and the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction Using Structural Equation Modeling and Item Response Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship and sexual satisfaction are two central outcomes in the study of relationships and are commonly used in both academia and applied practice. However, relationship and sexual satisfaction measures infrequently undergo specific psychometric investigation. Ensuring that measures display strong psychometric performance is an important but under-tested element of replication that has come under more scrutiny lately, and adequate measurement of constructs is an important auxiliary assumption underpinning theory-testing empirical work. A measurement check-up was conducted, including Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test factorial validity, measurement invariance to test for group comparability, and Item Response Theory (IRT) to assess the relationship between latent traits and their items/indicators. This format was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Couple's Satisfaction Index (CSI) and the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX), two commonly used scales of relationship and sexual satisfaction with a sample of 640 midlife (40-59 years old) married Canadians who were recruited by Qualtrics Panels. Results of CFA suggested that both models were satisfactory. Invariance testing provided robust support for intercept invariance across all the groupings tested. IRT analysis supported the CSI and GMSEX, however, there was evidence that the GMSEX provided somewhat less information for those high on sexual satisfaction. This measurement check-up found that the CSI and GMSEX were reasonably healthy with some caveats. Implications are discussed in terms of replicability and meaning for scholars and practitioners.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".