INTRODUCTION: There is a significant gap in research regarding the readability and comprehension of existing sexual function measures. Patient-reported outcome measures may use terms not well understood by respondents with low literacy. AIM: This study aims to test comprehension of words and phrases typically used in sexual function measures to improve validity for all individuals, including those with low literacy. METHODS: We recruited 20 men and 28 women for cognitive interviews on version 2.0 of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®) ) Sexual Function and Satisfaction measures. We assessed participants' reading level using the word reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test. Sixteen participants were classified as having low literacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the first round of cognitive interviews, each survey item was reviewed by five or more people, at least two of whom had lower than a ninth-grade reading level (low literacy). Patient feedback was incorporated into a revised version of the items. In the second round of interviews, an additional three or more people (at least one with low literacy) reviewed each revised item. RESULTS: Participants with low literacy had difficulty comprehending terms such as aroused, orgasm, erection, ejaculation, incontinence, and vaginal penetration. Women across a range of literacy levels had difficulty with clinical terms like labia and clitoris. We modified unclear terms to include parenthetical descriptors or slang equivalents, which generally improved comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Common words and phrases used across measures of self-reported sexual function are not universally understood. Researchers should appreciate these misunderstandings as a potential source of error in studies using self-reported measures of sexual function. This study also provides evidence for the importance of including individuals with low literacy in cognitive pretesting during the measure development.
INTRODUCTION: There is a significant gap in research regarding the readability and comprehension of existing sexual function measures. Patient-reported outcome measures may use terms not well understood by respondents with low literacy. AIM: This study aims to test comprehension of words and phrases typically used in sexual function measures to improve validity for all individuals, including those with low literacy. METHODS: We recruited 20 men and 28 women for cognitive interviews on version 2.0 of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®) ) Sexual Function and Satisfaction measures. We assessed participants' reading level using the word reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test. Sixteen participants were classified as having low literacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the first round of cognitive interviews, each survey item was reviewed by five or more people, at least two of whom had lower than a ninth-grade reading level (low literacy). Patient feedback was incorporated into a revised version of the items. In the second round of interviews, an additional three or more people (at least one with low literacy) reviewed each revised item. RESULTS:Participants with low literacy had difficulty comprehending terms such as aroused, orgasm, erection, ejaculation, incontinence, and vaginal penetration. Women across a range of literacy levels had difficulty with clinical terms like labia and clitoris. We modified unclear terms to include parenthetical descriptors or slang equivalents, which generally improved comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Common words and phrases used across measures of self-reported sexual function are not universally understood. Researchers should appreciate these misunderstandings as a potential source of error in studies using self-reported measures of sexual function. This study also provides evidence for the importance of including individuals with low literacy in cognitive pretesting during the measure development.
Authors: Carol E Adair; Anna C Holland; Michelle L Patterson; Kate S Mason; Paula N Goering; Stephen W Hwang Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Sabrina Witherby; Julia Johnson; Laurence Demers; Sharon Mount; Benjamin Littenberg; Charles D Maclean; Marie Wood; Hyman Muss Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-03-08
Authors: Daniel S Wang; Ashesh B Jani; Caroline G Tai; Musu Sesay; Daniel K Lee; Michael Goodman; Katharina V Echt; Kerry E Kilbridge; Viraj A Master Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alice K Fortune-Greeley; Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Megan S Williams; Francis J Keefe; Bryce B Reeve; Gordon B Willis; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kerry L Kilbridge; Gertrude Fraser; Murray Krahn; Elizabeth M Nelson; Mark Conaway; Randall Bashore; Andrew Wolf; Michael J Barry; Debra A Gong; Robert F Nease; Alfred F Connors Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Jeanne Carter; Li Lin; Stacy T Lindau; Diana D Jeffery; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Bethanee J Schlosser; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Stacy Tessler Lindau; Li Lin; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Diana D Jeffery; Jeanne Carter; Shirley R Baron; Emily Abramsohn; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Swathi Eluri; Raymond K Cross; Christopher Martin; Kevin P Weinfurt; Kathryn E Flynn; Millie D Long; Wenli Chen; Kristen Anton; Robert S Sandler; Michael D Kappelman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.199
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; Li Lin; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Jill M Cyranowski; Elizabeth A Hahn; Diana D Jeffery; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Bryce B Reeve; Rebecca A Shelby; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 3.802