Iris Bartula1, Kerry A Sherman. 1. Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sexual dysfunction commonly arises for women following diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI) when used with these women. METHODS: Sexually active women previously diagnosed with breast cancer (N = 399) completed an online questionnaire including the FSFI and measures of acceptability (ease of use, relevance), sexual functioning, body image, fatigue, impact of cancer, physical and mental health, and relationship adjustment. Reliability and validity were evaluated using standard scale validation techniques. RESULTS: Participants indicated a high degree of acceptability. Excellent internal consistency (α = 0.83-0.96) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.74-0.86) of the FSFI were evident. According to the confirmatory factor analysis, the best fit was achieved with removal of item 14 (regarding the extent of emotional closeness with the partner) and six subscales (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, pain), without a total score (TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07). Correlations with measures of sexual functioning and related constructs provided evidence for convergent and divergent validities, respectively. All but one subscale (orgasm) discriminated between women who are, and are not, currently receiving treatment for breast cancer (discriminant validity). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that not only is the FSFI psychometrically sound when used with women with breast cancer, but it is perceived as being easy to use and relevant. It is recommended that the FSFI subscale scores can be used in both clinical and research settings as a screening tool to identify women experiencing sexual dysfunction following breast cancer.
PURPOSE:Sexual dysfunction commonly arises for women following diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI) when used with these women. METHODS: Sexually active women previously diagnosed with breast cancer (N = 399) completed an online questionnaire including the FSFI and measures of acceptability (ease of use, relevance), sexual functioning, body image, fatigue, impact of cancer, physical and mental health, and relationship adjustment. Reliability and validity were evaluated using standard scale validation techniques. RESULTS:Participants indicated a high degree of acceptability. Excellent internal consistency (α = 0.83-0.96) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.74-0.86) of the FSFI were evident. According to the confirmatory factor analysis, the best fit was achieved with removal of item 14 (regarding the extent of emotional closeness with the partner) and six subscales (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, pain), without a total score (TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07). Correlations with measures of sexual functioning and related constructs provided evidence for convergent and divergent validities, respectively. All but one subscale (orgasm) discriminated between women who are, and are not, currently receiving treatment for breast cancer (discriminant validity). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that not only is the FSFI psychometrically sound when used with women with breast cancer, but it is perceived as being easy to use and relevant. It is recommended that the FSFI subscale scores can be used in both clinical and research settings as a screening tool to identify women experiencing sexual dysfunction following breast cancer.
Authors: Ilana B Addis; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Christina L Wassel-Fyr; Eric Vittinghoff; Jeanette S Brown; David H Thom Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen Sorice; Stephen J Lepore; Mary B Daly; James A Tulsky; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-10-04
Authors: Jessica N Sanders; Jacob Kean; Chong Zhang; Angela P Presson; Bethany G Everett; David K Turok; Jenny A Higgins Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.937
Authors: Maria Ida Maiorino; Paolo Chiodini; Giuseppe Bellastella; Dario Giugliano; Katherine Esposito Journal: Endocrine Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Kristin E Rojas; Elizabeth Butler; Julie Gutierrez; Rebecca Kwait; Jessica Laprise; Jennifer Scalia Wilbur; Sarah Spinette; Christina A Raker; Katina Robison; Robert Legare; Jennifer Gass; Ashley Stuckey Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2019-06
Authors: Márta Hock; Nelli Farkas; István Tiringer; Stefánia Gitta; Zoltán Németh; Bálint Farkas Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Lauren A Zimmaro; Stephen J Lepore; Kristen A Sorice; Elizabeth Handorf; Mary B Daly; Leslie R Schover; Deborah Kashy; Kelly Westbrook; Laura S Porter Journal: Trials Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 2.279