| Literature DB >> 32644937 |
Shane W Kraus1, Mateusz Gola2,3, Joshua B Grubbs4, Ewelina Kowalewska5, Rani A Hoff6,7, Michał Lew-Starowicz5, Steve Martino6,8, Steven D Shirk8,9, Marc N Potenza6,10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To address current gaps around screening for problematic pornography use (PPU), we initially developed and tested a six-item Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) that asked about PPU in the past six months. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited five independent samples from the U.S. and Poland to evaluate the psychometric properties of the BPS. In Study 1, we evaluated the factor structure, reliability, and elements of validity using a sample of 224 U.S. veterans. One item from the BPS was dropped in Study 1 due to low item endorsement. In Studies 2 and 3, we further investigated the five-item the factor structure of the BPS and evaluated its reliability and validity in two national U.S. representative samples (N = 1,466, N = 1,063, respectively). In Study 4, we confirmed the factor structure and evaluated its validity and reliability using a sample of 703 Polish adults. In Study 5, we calculated the suggested cut-off score for the screen using a sample of 105 male patients seeking treatment for compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32644937 PMCID: PMC8939429 DOI: 10.1556/2006.2020.00038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Study 1, Frequency count of agreement for the six items of the Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) among U.S. veterans ( N = 222)
| Items | Never (%) | Occasionally (%) | Very Often (%) | M (SD) | Component matrix |
|
| 60.5 | 29.6 | 9.9 | 1.49 (0.67) | 0.80∗ |
|
| 73.5 | 18.8 | 7.2 | 1.33 (0.61) | 0.82∗ |
|
| 61.9 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 1.47 (0.66) | 0.84∗ |
|
| 68.6 | 20.2 | 10.8 | 1.42 (0.68) | 0.73∗ |
|
| 61.4 | 25.6 | 12.6 | 1.51 (0.71) | 0.76∗ |
| People have expressed concern about your use of pornography. | 90.6 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 1.12 (0.41) | 0.49 |
Note . Component loadings in boldface indicate higher loadings on that component. Missing data on two participants.
Component 1 = 3.75; Percent of variance = 62.5%.
∗ Bolded items were retained in the final version.
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Study 1, Correlations and means and standard deviations for study variables of interest for U.S. veterans
| Variable | Brief Pornography Screen | Range | |||
|
Women (
|
Men (
| ||||
|
| M (SD) |
| M (SD) | ||
| Brief Pornography Screen | – | 0.80 (1.73) | – | 2.55 (2.87) | 0–10 |
| Pornography Craving Questionnaire | 0.32∗ | 2.03 (0.95) | 0.45∗∗ | 2.95 (1.34) | 1–7 |
| Problematic Pornography Use Scale | 0.77∗∗ | 1.27 (0.50) | 0.75∗∗ | 1.92 (0.98) | 1–5.7 |
| Hypersexual Behavior Inventory | 0.66∗∗ | 27.1 (9.0) | 0.60∗∗ | 34.8 (15.4) | 18–95 |
| UPPS-P Negative Urgency | 0.29 | 2.27 (0.51) | 0.30∗∗ | 2.36 (0.52) | 1.3–3.9 |
| UPPS-P Lack of Premeditation | 0.11 | 2.07 (0.44) | −0.03 | 2.08 (0.40) | 1.2–3.3 |
| UPPS-P Lack of Perseverance | 0.18 | 1.79 (0.42) | 0.11 | 1.94 (0.48) | 1.0–3.4 |
| UPPS-P Sensation Seeking | −0.02 | 2.61 (0.48) | 0.05 | 2.87 (0.37) | 1.2–4.0 |
| UPPS-P Positive Urgency | 0.22 | 1.94 (0.44) | 0.22∗∗ | 2.23 (0.48) | 1.1–3.6 |
Note . ∗ P < 0.05, ∗∗ P < 0.01.
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Correlations of BPS scores with other measures in a sample of Polish community adults ( N = 703)
| Variable | Brief Pornography Screen | Range | |||
|
Women (
|
Men (
| ||||
|
| M (SD) |
| M (SD) | ||
| Brief Pornography Screen | – | 1.12 (1.92) | – | 3.56 (3.11) | 0–10 |
| Amount of pornography use during last week (min.) | 0.07 | 60.46 (108.93) | 0.17∗ | 124.66 (179.12) | 1–1,200 |
| Sexual Addiction Screening Test – Revised | 0.43∗∗ | 3.81 (2.99) | 0.61∗∗ | 5.51 (4.23) | 0–18 |
| Obsessive Compulsive Inventory – Revised | 0.17∗∗ | 18.03 (10.38) | 0.25∗∗ | 19.21 (9.72) | 0–58 |
| UPPS-P Negative Urgency | 0.22∗∗ | 29.26 (7.16) | 0.29∗∗ | 27.02 (7.79) | 2–48 |
| UPPS-P Lack of Premeditation | 0.06 | 22.28 (5.26) | 0.14 | 21.83 (5.86) | 2–41 |
| UPPS-P Lack of Perseverance | 0.14∗∗ | 20.25 (5.18) | 0.15∗ | 20.24 (4.92) | 2–37 |
| UPPS-P Sensation Seeking | −0.06 | 31.22 (7.75) | −0.004 | 34.39 (7.99) | 4–48 |
| UPPS-P Positive Urgency | 0.12∗∗ | 28.02 (9.54) | 0.27∗∗ | 28.90 (10.03) | 9–56 |
Note. ∗ P < 0.05, ∗∗ P < 0.01.
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Fig. 1.Study 5, ROC curve for the Polish-adapted BPS for those seeking treatment for problematic use of pornography (Score of 4 or higher)
ROC analysis for proposed Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) with suggested cut-off scores
| Statistic | Value of 4 on the BPS | Value of 5 on the BPS | ||
| Value | 95% CI | Value | 95% CI | |
| Sensitivity | 58.4% | 51.1–65.5% | 68.4% | 61.3–75.0% |
| Specificity | 90.5% | 83.2–95.3% | 83.8% | 75.6–90.3% |
| Positive Likelihood Ratio | 6.13 | 3.36–11.20 | 4.23 | 2.71–6.60 |
| Negative Likelihood Ratio | 0.46 | 0.38–0.55 | 0.38 | 0.30–0.47 |
| Disease prevalence | 64.4% | 58.7–69.9% | 64.4% | 58.7–69.9% |
| Positive Predictive Value | 91.7% | 85.8–95.3% | 88.4% | 83–92.3% |
| Negative Predictive Value | 54.6% | 50.1–59% | 59.5% | 53.9–64.8% |
| Accuracy | 69.8% | 64.2–75% | 73.9% | 68.5–78.8% |
| Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) | Date: | ||
| ID#: | |||
|
| Never | Occasionally | Very Often |
|
You find yourself using pornography more than you want to. | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|
You have attempted to “cut back” or stop using pornography, but were unsuccessful. | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|
You find it difficult to resist strong urges to use pornography. | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|
You find yourself using pornography to cope with strong emotions (e.g., sadness, anger, loneliness, etc.). | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|
You continue to use pornography even though you feel guilty about it. | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Scoring . A score of 4 ≥ is considered a positive screen for possible problematic pornography use. Additional examination for possible problematic pornography use is encouraged.