Previously submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research (no longer under consideration since Nov 19, 2021)
Date Submitted: Oct 20, 2021
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Validity of Self-Reported Sexual Function Scales: A Comparison Study with Auxiliary-Reporting
ABSTRACT
Background:
Sexual function scales are widely used in self-diagnosis and web-based surveys, but their validity has not been evaluated.
Objective:
To explore the validity of self-reported sexual function scales.
Methods:
The participants who visited our hospital from June 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021 filled two questionnaires. The first, self-report version (SRV), was filled individually. The second, auxiliary-report version (ARV) was filled after explanation and aid from a researcher. The ARV was used as the standard, and the classification was based on age, occupation, education, Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT), International Index for Erectile Function (IIEF-6), and sexual frequency. The number of misdeclarations, overestimations, underestimations, false-positive, and false-negative rates of Erection Hardness Scale (EHS), IIEF-6, Masturbation Erection Index (MEI), and PEDT in the SRV were evaluated. The intraclass correlation coefficient, Spearman correlation, and Bland-Altman plot were used to assess consistency.
Results:
A total of 322 patients who visited our hospital were included. The SRV error rate was higher for participants over 40 years of age. The remaining categories had no effect on the error rate of the SRV. In addition, as individuals, participants were more likely to overestimate the severity of their disease in the SRV, consistent with a false-positive rate. Overall, there was consistency between the two questionnaires.
Conclusions:
The self-reporting of EHS, IIEF-6, MEI, and PEDT by participants was valid. These can help patients to effectively and quickly reach conclusions in a cost-friendly manner. However, misdiagnoses are possible. Clinical Trial: The present study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Reg. No. [2021]02-249-01).
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.