Stephanie Montgomery-Graham1. 1. Clinical Psychology, Western University, London, ON, Canada. Electronic address: smontgo9@uwo.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the rejection of hypersexual disorder (HD) as a new diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), clinical and research interest in HD continues. AIM: To systematically review the existing scientific literature on the conceptualization and assessment of HD and out-of-control sexual behavior. METHODS: Studies were identified from PsychInfo, PubMed, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Scholar's Portal using an exhaustive list of key terms. Of 299 total articles identified and screened, 252 were excluded, and 47 are included in this review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To review two categories of articles: HD conceptualization and HD psychometric assessment. RESULTS: First, results of the review of theoretical conceptualizations of HD reflected a large proportion of the peer-reviewed literature devoted to discussing conceptualizations of HD without reaching consensus. Second, results of the review of HD psychometric assessments were analyzed using Hunsley and Mash's (2008) criteria to evaluate psychometric adequacy of evidence-based assessment measurements. The six most researched measurements of HD were evaluated, including the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory, the Sexual Compulsivity Scale, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised, and the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory. Psychometric properties of the scales are reviewed, evaluated, and discussed. CONCLUSION: The Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the measurement proposed for the clinical screening of HD by the DSM-5 workgroup, currently has the strongest psychometric support. Future research and clinical directions are discussed in light of findings after the literature review and synthesis. Montgomery-Graham S. Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:146-162.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the rejection of hypersexual disorder (HD) as a new diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), clinical and research interest in HD continues. AIM: To systematically review the existing scientific literature on the conceptualization and assessment of HD and out-of-control sexual behavior. METHODS: Studies were identified from PsychInfo, PubMed, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Scholar's Portal using an exhaustive list of key terms. Of 299 total articles identified and screened, 252 were excluded, and 47 are included in this review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To review two categories of articles: HD conceptualization and HD psychometric assessment. RESULTS: First, results of the review of theoretical conceptualizations of HD reflected a large proportion of the peer-reviewed literature devoted to discussing conceptualizations of HD without reaching consensus. Second, results of the review of HD psychometric assessments were analyzed using Hunsley and Mash's (2008) criteria to evaluate psychometric adequacy of evidence-based assessment measurements. The six most researched measurements of HD were evaluated, including the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory, the Sexual Compulsivity Scale, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised, and the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory. Psychometric properties of the scales are reviewed, evaluated, and discussed. CONCLUSION: The Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the measurement proposed for the clinical screening of HD by the DSM-5 workgroup, currently has the strongest psychometric support. Future research and clinical directions are discussed in light of findings after the literature review and synthesis. Montgomery-Graham S. Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:146-162.
Authors: Dan J Stein; Peter Szatmari; Wolfgang Gaebel; Michael Berk; Eduard Vieta; Mario Maj; Ymkje Anna de Vries; Annelieke M Roest; Peter de Jonge; Andreas Maercker; Chris R Brewin; Kathleen M Pike; Carlos M Grilo; Naomi A Fineberg; Peer Briken; Peggy T Cohen-Kettenis; Geoffrey M Reed Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Jannis Engel; Andrea Kessler; Maria Veit; Christopher Sinke; Ivo Heitland; Jonas Kneer; Uwe Hartmann; Tillmann H C Kruger Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 6.756
Authors: Andreas Chatzittofis; Adrian E Boström; Katarina Görts Öberg; John N Flanagan; Helgi B Schiöth; Stefan Arver; Jussi Jokinen Journal: Sex Med Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: Piet van Tuijl; Aerjen Tamminga; Gert-Jan Meerkerk; Peter Verboon; Ruslan Leontjevas; Jacques van Lankveld Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pasquale Caponnetto; Marilena Maglia; Graziella Chiara Prezzavento; Concetta Pirrone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 3.390