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 Article
  • Published:

Psychometric validation of the Confidence in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire and Difficulty in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 26, pages 105–111 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The objective of this study was to perform psychometric testing of two new patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs), the Confidence in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire (CPSIQ) and the Difficulty in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire (DPSIQ). The new PROs were administered at non-drug, run-in, baseline and end point in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) participating in a randomized clinical trial of ED treatment (Study 1, n=291) and two times within 2 weeks to men with ED participating in a web-based survey (Study 2, n=71). Psychometric tests included factor analysis, internal consistency and test–retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Analysis of data from Study 1 participants (74% ≤65 years, 83% Caucasian and 75% with moderate ED) suggested one-factor solutions for both PROs with Cronbach’s α >0.88. CPSIQ and DPSIQ total scores discriminated between ED severity groups showed worsening after a 4-week non-drug, run-in period, and showed improvement after 12 weeks of ED treatment (all, P<0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients calculated for the CPSIQ and DPSIQ, using data from Study 2 participants (82% ≤65 years, 90% Caucasian and 66% with mild ED), were 0.56 and 0.83, respectively. The CPSIQ and DPSIQ show potential for augmenting existing treatment outcome measures used in the evaluation of ED treatment.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Althof SE, Leiblum SR, Chevret-Measson M, Hartmann U, Levine SB, McCabe M et al. Psychological and interpersonal dimensions of sexual function and dysfunction. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 793–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. San Martin C, Simonelli C, Sonksen J, Schnetzler G, Patel S . Perceptions and opinions of men and women on a man’s sexual confidence and its relationship to ED: results of the European Sexual Confidence Survey. Int J Impot Res 2012; 24: 234–241.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berner MM, Ploger W, Burkart M . A typology of men’s sexual attitudes, erectile dysfunction treatment expectations and barriers. Int J Impot Res 2007; 19: 568–576.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Latini DM, Penson DF, Wallace KL, Lubeck DP, Lue TF . Longitudinal differences in psychological outcomes for men with erectile dysfunction: results from EXCEED™. J Sex Med 2006; 3: 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher WA, Rosen RC, Eardley I, Niederberger C, Nadel A, Kaufman J et al. The Multinational Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) Study Phase II: understanding PDE5 inhibitor treatment seeking patterns, among men with erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2004; 1: 150–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cappelleri JC, Stecher VJ . An assessment of patient-reported outcomes for men with erectile dysfunction: Pfizer’s perspective. Int J Impot Res 2008; 20: 343–357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.

  8. Hayes RP, Henne J, Meldahl ML, Sontag A . Establishing the content validity of the confidence in performing sexual intercourse and difficulty in performing sexual intercourse questionnaires. Int J Impot Res 2013; 25: 234–240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Araujo AB, Allen KR, Ni X, Rosen RC . Minimal clinically important differences in the vaginal insertion and successful intercourse items of the sexual encounter profile. J Sex Med 2012; 9: 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim ED, Seftel AD, Goldfischer ER, Ni X, Burns PR . A return to normal erectile function with tadalafil once daily after an incomplete response to as-needed PDE-5 inhibitor therapy. J Sex Med 2013, http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/jsm.12253. (e-pub ahead of print).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marsh HW, Hau KT . Confirmatory factor analysis: strategies for small sample sizes. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hu L, Bentler PM . Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Eq Model 1999; 6: 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoyle RH . Structural Equation Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology. Sage Publications: London, 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH . Psychometric Theory 3rd edn McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirshner B, Guyatt G . A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cappelleri JC, Althof SE, Siegel RL, Shpilsky A, Bell SS, Duttagupta S . Development and validation of the Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire in erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2004; 16: 30–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Molly Tomlin for her assistance in preparation of this manuscript. The randomized, clinical trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT130532. This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    R P Hayes & W Shen

  2. Cooper University Hospital–Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

    A Seftel

  3. New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA, USA

    R C Rosen

  4. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    S Althof

  5. inVentiv Health, Burlington, MA, USA

    T Shih

  6. Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    A Sontag

Authors
  1. R P Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Seftel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R C Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S Althof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A Sontag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R P Hayes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest. RPH, WS and AS: Eli Lilly and Company—full-time employees and shareholders; AS: Abbot, Actient Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company—consultant and Auxilium—research support; RR: Auxilium Bayer Healthcare, Eli Lilly and Company and Palatin Pharmaceuticals—consultant; SA: Abbott, Bayer Healthcare, Eli Lilly and Company, Palitan Pharmaceuticals, Promenesent, Sprout Pharmaceuticals; TS: Eli Lilly and Company—statistical subcontractor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayes, R., Seftel, A., Rosen, R. et al. Psychometric validation of the Confidence in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire and Difficulty in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire. Int J Impot Res 26, 105–111 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.45

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.45

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links