INTRODUCTION: Despite the ubiquity of 1-month recall periods for measures of sexual function, there is limited evidence for how well recalled responses correspond to individuals' actual daily experiences. AIM: To characterize the correspondence between daily sexual experiences and 1-month recall of those experiences. METHODS: Following a baseline assessment of sexual functioning, health, and demographic characteristics, 202 adults from the general population (101 women, 101 men) were recruited to complete daily assessments of their sexual function online for 30 days and a single recall measure of sexual function at day 30. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At the baseline and 30-day follow-ups, participants answered items asking about sexual satisfaction, sexual activities, interest, interfering factors, orgasm, sexual functioning, and use of therapeutic aids during the previous 30 days. Participants also completed a measure of positive and negative affect at follow-up. The main outcome measures were agreement between the daily and 1-month recall versions of the sexual function items. RESULTS: Accuracy of recall varied depending on the item and on the gender and mood of the respondent. Recall was better (low bias and higher correlations) for sexual activities, vaginal discomfort, erectile function, and more frequently used therapeutic aids. Recall was poorer for interest, affectionate behaviors (e.g., kissing), and orgasm-related items. Men more than women overestimated frequency of interest and masturbation. Concurrent mood was related to over- or underreporting for six items addressing the frequency of masturbation and vaginal intercourse, erectile function, and orgasm. CONCLUSIONS: A 1-month recall period seems acceptable for many aspects of sexual function in this population, but recall for some items was poor. Researchers should be aware that concurrent mood can have a powerful biasing effect on reports of sexual function.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the ubiquity of 1-month recall periods for measures of sexual function, there is limited evidence for how well recalled responses correspond to individuals' actual daily experiences. AIM: To characterize the correspondence between daily sexual experiences and 1-month recall of those experiences. METHODS: Following a baseline assessment of sexual functioning, health, and demographic characteristics, 202 adults from the general population (101 women, 101 men) were recruited to complete daily assessments of their sexual function online for 30 days and a single recall measure of sexual function at day 30. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At the baseline and 30-day follow-ups, participants answered items asking about sexual satisfaction, sexual activities, interest, interfering factors, orgasm, sexual functioning, and use of therapeutic aids during the previous 30 days. Participants also completed a measure of positive and negative affect at follow-up. The main outcome measures were agreement between the daily and 1-month recall versions of the sexual function items. RESULTS: Accuracy of recall varied depending on the item and on the gender and mood of the respondent. Recall was better (low bias and higher correlations) for sexual activities, vaginal discomfort, erectile function, and more frequently used therapeutic aids. Recall was poorer for interest, affectionate behaviors (e.g., kissing), and orgasm-related items. Men more than women overestimated frequency of interest and masturbation. Concurrent mood was related to over- or underreporting for six items addressing the frequency of masturbation and vaginal intercourse, erectile function, and orgasm. CONCLUSIONS: A 1-month recall period seems acceptable for many aspects of sexual function in this population, but recall for some items was poor. Researchers should be aware that concurrent mood can have a powerful biasing effect on reports of sexual function.
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Francis J Keefe; Laura S Porter; Rebecca A Shelby; Maria R Fawzy; Tracy K Gosselin; Bryce B Reeve; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Mian Wang; Kevin Weinfurt; Kathryn E Flynn; Deborah S Usinger; Ronald C Chen Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Sarah A Mansfield; Abigail R Smith; Brenda W Gillespie; Catherine S Bradley; David Cella; J Quentin Clemens; Margaret E Helmuth; H Henry Lai; Ziya Kirkali; Pooja Talaty; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Li Lin; Jeanne Carter; Raymond E Baser; Shari Goldfarb; Sally Saban; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 3.937
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Sarah A Mansfield; Abigail R Smith; Brenda W Gillespie; Catherine S Bradley; David Cella; Margaret E Helmuth; H Henry Lai; Ziya Kirkali; Pooja Talaty; James W Griffith; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Amalia S Magaret; Andrew Mujugira; James P Hughes; Jairam Lingappa; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Guy DeBruyn; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Kenneth H Fife; Glenda E Gray; Saidi Kapiga; Etienne Karita; Nelly R Mugo; Helen Rees; Allan Ronald; Bellington Vwalika; Edwin Were; Connie Celum; Anna Wald Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 9.079