Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Research
  • Published:

Quality of Sexual Life Questionnaire (QVS): a reliable, sensitive and reproducible instrument to assess quality of life in subjects with erectile dysfunction

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 15, pages 173–184 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

A French quality of life questionnaire specific to erectile dysfunction (ED), ‘QVS’ for ‘Questionnaire de Vie Sexuelle’, has been developed. This paper describes its validation: item reduction and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility), construct validity and criterion validity (clinical, discriminant and concurrent). The initial 40-item questionnaire was administered once to 316 ED and 117 control subjects, and twice (D0 and D7) to 104 ED and 29 control subjects. Item reduction gave a 27-item questionnaire with three scales (Sexual Life, Skills and Psychosocial Well-being) and four scores (one score for each scale and a Global Index). Psychometric analyses demonstrated the reliability and the validity of the QVS. The questionnaire was able to discriminate patients according to the presence or severity of ED. The Skills scale was the least sensitive. Analysis of responsiveness to change over time still needs to be addressed to consider the questionnaire as a fully validated instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. JAMA 1993; 270: 83–90.

  2. Feldman HA et al. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of Massachussets male aging study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Korenman SG . New insights into erectile dysfunction: a practical approach. Am J Med 1998; 105: 135–144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ackerman MD, D'Attilio JP, Antoni MH, Campbell BM . Assessment of erectile dysfunction in diabetic men: the clinical relevance of self-reported sexual functioning. J Sex Marital Ther 1991; 17: 191–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Libman E, Rothenberg I, Fichten CS, Amsel R . A measure of sexual self-efficacy in erectile functioning. J Sex Marital Ther 1985; 11: 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. LoPiccolo J, Steger JC . The sexual interaction inventory: a new instrument for assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1974; 3: 585–595.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. De Amicis LA et al. Clinical follow-up of couples treated for sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1985; 14: 467–489.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N . The DFSI: a multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. J Sex Marital Therap 1979; 5: 244–281.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Geisser ME et al. Reliability and validity of the Florida Sexual History Questionnaire. J Clin Psychol 1991; 47: 519–528.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rust J, Golombok S . The GRISS: a psychometric instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1986; 15: 157–165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. O'Leary MP et al. A brief male sexual function inventory for urology. Urology 1995; 46: 697–706.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen RC et al. Constructing and evaluating the ‘sexual health inventory for men: IIEF’ as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction (ED). Int J Impot Res 1998; 10: S35.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen RC et al. The internal index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Corty EW, Althof SE, Kurit DM . The reliability and validity of a sexual functioning questionnaire. J Sex Marital Ther 1996; 22: 27–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fineman KR, Rettinger HI . Development of the male function profile/impotence questionnaire. Psychol Rep 1991; 68: 1151–1175.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wagner TH, Patrick DL, McKenna SP, Froese PS . Cross-cultural development of a quality of life measure for men with erection difficulties. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 443–449.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hass SL et al. Reliability and validity of the sexual life quality questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1997; 79: 656.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mann K et al. Effects of yohimbine on sexual experiences and nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity in erectile dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1996; 25: 1–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McCabe MP et al. Sexual Dysfunction Scale. In: Davis CM et al. (eds). Handbook of Sex Related Measures. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, 1998, pp 191–192.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Derogatis LR . The derogatis sexual functioning inventory. In: Davis CM et al. (eds). Handook of Sex Related Measures. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, 1998, pp 269–271.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Speckens AEM et al. A prospective long-term follow-up study of patients evaluated for erectile dysfunction: outcome and associated factors. Int J Impotence Res 1995; 7: 101–110.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lohr KN et al. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979–992.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hays RD, Anderson RT, Revicki D . Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds). Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp 169–182.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hays R, Hayashi T, Sarson S, Ware Jr J . User's guide for the multitrait analysis program (MAP). RAND 1988; note N-2786-RC.

  25. Campbell DT, Fisk DW . Convergent and discriminative validation by the multitrait multi-method matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cronbach LJ . Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki DA . Psychometric Evaluation and Interpretation of Health Related Quality of Life Data. Rapid communications of Oxford Ltd 1995.

  28. Fleiss J, Cohen J . The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychom Meas 1973; 33: 613–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cappelleri JC et al. Some development on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Drug Inform J 1999; 33: 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greenstein A, Chen J, Perez ED, Mullingan T . Characteristics of men interested in evaluation of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1994; 6: 199–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Conte HR . Development and use of self-report techniques for assessing sexual functioning: a review and critique. Arch Sex Behav 1983; 12: 555–576.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpital Gaston Doumergue, Service d'Urologie-Andrologie, Nîmes Cedex, France

    P Costa

  2. Mapi Values, Lyon, France

    B Arnould & A Marrel

  3. Hôpital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France

    F Cour & P Boyer

  4. Laboratoire Pfizer, Paris, cedex, France

    E O Jaudinot & A Solesse de Gendre

Authors
  1. P Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B Arnould
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F Cour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P Boyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A Marrel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E O Jaudinot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A Solesse de Gendre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P Costa.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Review of 17 questionnaires and comparison with the QVS

Table A1

Table 3
Full size table

Appendix 2: QVS questionnaire and scoring method

French version of the questionnaire

Les questions suivantes portent sur votre vie sexuelle. Pour chaque question, veuillez cocher une seule case. Nous vous remercions de remplir ce questionnaire seul, dans un endroit calme si possible.

Prenez tout le temps qu'il vous sera nécessaire. Il n'y a pas de réponse juste ou fausse. Si vous ne savez pas très bien comment répondre, choisissez la réponse la plus proche de votre situation.

Table A2, Table A3

Table 4
Full size table
Table 5
Full size table

English version of the questionnaire

The following questions ask about your sexual life. Please indicate your answer by ticking one box. Please take your time to fill in the questionnaire and answer the questions alone in a quiet place.

There are no right or wrong answers. If you do not know how to answer, please choose the response that best corresponds to your situation.

Scoring method

Sexual Life score (eight items): The raw score is the sum of answers to set: ‘you think things are going…’ of items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. If the number of items without any answer is >3, the score cannot be calculated. If the number of items without any answer is ≤3, the missing value is replaced by the mean score of the items which are completed. Minimal (Min) score is 8, maximum (Max) score is 40.

Final score=[(raw score−Min)/(Max−Min)]*100.

Skills score (13 items): The raw score is the sum of answers to set: ‘in your life you consider this to be…’ of all items except item 14.

If the number of items without any answer is >6, the score cannot be calculated. If the number of items without any answer is ≤6, the missing value is replaced by the mean score of the items that are completed. Minimal score is 13, maximum score is 52.

Final score=[(raw score−Min)/(Max−Min)]*100.

Psychosocial Well-being score (six items): The raw score is the sum of answers to set: ‘you think things are going…’ of items: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. If the number of items without any answer is >2, the score cannot be calculated. If the number of items without any answer is ≤2, the missing value is replaced by the mean score of the items that are completed. Minimal score is 6, maximum score is 30.

Final score=[(raw score−Min)/(Max−Min)]*100.

Global QOL Index (14 items): The raw score is the sum of items from the Sexual Life score and Psychosocial Well-being score. If the number of items without any answer is >6, the score cannot be calculated. If the number of items without any answer is ≤6, the missing value is replaced by the mean score of the items that are completed. Minimal score is 14, maximum score is 70.

Final score=[(raw score−Min)/(Max−Min)]*100.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Costa, P., Arnould, B., Cour, F. et al. Quality of Sexual Life Questionnaire (QVS): a reliable, sensitive and reproducible instrument to assess quality of life in subjects with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 15, 173–184 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900995

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900995

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links