Daker-White Gavin
Faculty of Health and Social Care, Centre for Research in Applied Social Care and Health, University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Blackberry Hill, Stapleton, Bristol BS16 1DD, United Kingdom.
Arch Sex Behav. 2002 Apr;31(2):197-209. doi: 10.1023/a:1014743304566.
This paper examines the published reliability and validity of non-disease specific, self-report measures of sexual function. Relevant papers were found in a search of the Embase electronic bibliographic database, for English language papers (published 1980-99) reporting on the psychometric testing of sexual function questionnaires. Existing published reviews or collections of such instruments were also searched, and the reference lists of all papers obtained were "back-searched" to identify other measures. Included measures were evaluated in a systematic manner using published standards concerning the validity, internal consistency, and reproducibility of health measurement scales and quality of life measures. Twenty-three self-report measures were identified for inclusion in this review. A further 2 measures were identified by reviewers of this paper after the main searches were undertaken. One measure was found not to be exclusively self-report. Eleven (46% of 24 included measures) did not meet minimum published standards for reliability, internal consistency, and validity. However one of these was reliable and valid in the female-version only. Of the 14 reliable and valid measures, or versions thereof (58% of 24), 2 (8% of 24) met "superior" psychometric standards. Many measures were developed for use with patients in sex or marital therapy, and are mainly suitable for administration to people with long-term sex partners. It is sensible to assume that instruments are only reliable and valid in the often specialized populations in which they were developed.
本文探讨已发表的非疾病特异性性功能自我报告测量方法的信度和效度。通过检索Embase电子文献数据库，查找1980 - 1999年发表的关于性功能问卷心理测量测试的英文论文，从而找到相关论文。还检索了此类工具现有的已发表综述或汇编，并对所有获取论文的参考文献列表进行“回溯检索”以确定其他测量方法。使用已发表的关于健康测量量表和生活质量测量的效度、内部一致性和可重复性的标准，以系统的方式对纳入的测量方法进行评估。确定了23种自我报告测量方法纳入本综述。在进行主要检索之后，本文的审阅者又确定了另外2种测量方法。发现有一种测量方法并非完全是自我报告式的。24种纳入的测量方法中有11种（占46%）未达到已发表的关于信度、内部一致性和效度的最低标准。然而，其中一种仅在女性版本中是可靠且有效的。在14种可靠且有效的测量方法或其版本中（占24种的58%），有2种（占24种的8%）达到了“卓越”的心理测量标准。许多测量方法是为性治疗或婚姻治疗中的患者开发的，主要适用于有长期性伴侣的人群。可以合理地假设，这些工具仅在其开发时所针对的通常较为特殊的人群中是可靠且有效的。
