1 / 17

Štulhofer, A.*, Buško, V.**, Brouillard, P.***, Kuljanić, K.****

A New Measure of Sexual Satisfaction: Bi-national Validation of The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS). Štulhofer, A.*, Buško, V.**, Brouillard, P.***, Kuljanić, K.**** *Sexology Unit, Dept. of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb

fala
Télécharger la présentation

Štulhofer, A.*, Buško, V.**, Brouillard, P.***, Kuljanić, K.****

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A New Measure of Sexual Satisfaction: Bi-national Validation of The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS) Štulhofer, A.*, Buško, V.**, Brouillard, P.***, Kuljanić, K.**** *Sexology Unit, Dept. of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb **Dept. of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb ***A&M University at Corpus Christi, TX ****Gynecology and Obstetrics Ward, University Hospital, Rijeka 8th Alps-Adria Psychology Conference, October 2-4,2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia

  2. How (scholarly) important is sexual satisfaction? • Standard social science justification • Marital stability • Sexual satisfaction=“intimate glue” • Sexological justification • Sexual rights paradigm • Sexual health paradigm • “Postmodern” real life justification • Sexual satisfaction=measure of individual success

  3. What the world needs nowis not another sexual satisfaction scale… - OR? • Existing instruments • General (one or two-item) measures • Ad hoc measures (Hudson et al, 1981 /Index of Sexual Satisfaction/; Young & Luquis, 1998; Snell, 1993) • Gender-specific m. (Pinney et al., 1987 /Pinney Inventory/; Meston & Trapnell, 2005 /Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women/) • Relationship-specific m. (Lawrance & Byers, 1995 /Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction/) • Sexual health or combined satisfaction-distress measures (clinical relevance is emphasized; Golombok & Rust, 1986 /G-R Inventory/; Meston & Trapnell, 2005) • Hetero-specificity? (Unknown) • Our rationale…

  4. Conceptual framework: Revisiting sex therapy • The majority of existing scales do not have a clear theoretical/conceptual anchorage • A somewhat paradoxical approach: starting from a negative perspective (What is behind the lack of sexual satisfaction? Which factors negatively affect sexual health?) • Sex therapy and counseling literature as the starting point

  5. Conceptual framework: Basic dimensions and related categories

  6. Participants and data collection • Online questionnaire (using a US-based commercial Internet surveying tool) • Mostly network-based or referral sampling • Data collected between November 2007 and May 2008 • The samples: • Croatian students (2 samples; n=544+219 /test-retest/) • Croatian adults (n=729) • Croatian non-heterosexual adults (n=360) • Croatian clinical sample (n=54) • US students (n=356) • US adults (n=212)

  7. Scale development • Initial pool of 35 items (Likert-type scale: 1=completely dissatisfied / 5=completely satisfied) • 1st step: PCA procedure extracted 5-6 factors with Eigenvalue >1 • 2nd step: forced two-factor solution (oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization) • 54-58% total item variance explained; factor correlation=.52-.61 • Final selection of items (k=20, 10 per component) was guided by factor loadings and content overlap (redundancy)

  8. Two facets of sexual satisfaction • Ego-centered vs. Partner- (and sexualactivity) centered dimension • Both factors contain items related to all five conceptual dimensions

  9. The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS)

  10. Reliability

  11. Construct validity *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

  12. Temporal stability M1 = 1st measurement mean, M2 = 2nd measurement mean; *p <.001

  13. Clinical application p<.001

  14. Study limitations • Theoretical framework was not confirmed • Size of the initial pool of items? • Initial “dichotomization” of items? • Presence of 5 dimensions in each factor; high correlation between the NSSS (k=20) and a short version (k=12) constructed following the conceptual framework (r=.98-.99) • Sampling bias and systematic overestimation of sexual satisfaction levels

  15. Conclusion and further steps • The NSSS appears to be valid and cross-culturally applicable scale for measuring sexual satisfaction/content • Sociocultural “determinants” of sexual satisfaction (the US vs. Croatia): CRO_sat > US_sat CRO_FEM_sat = CRO_MALE_sat US_FEM_sat > US_MALE_sat CRO_ADULT_sat > CRO_STUD_sat US_ADULT_sat < US_STUD_sat FEM_ego_sat < or = FEM_partner_sat MALE_ego_sat > MALE_partner_sat • NSSS isapplicable regardless of gender, relationship status, or sexual orientation • More thorough clinical assessment is needed (an on-going study on couples participating in an assisted reproduction program /infertility treatment/) • Exploring variation in the NSSS scores associated with the type, dynamics, and “locus” of sexual problem/dysfunction

  16. Thank you...

More Related