| Literature DB >> 33238440 |
Sun Houng Kim1, Hyang Yuol Lee2, Seung Young Lee3, Bum Suk Lee1.
Abstract
A Sexual Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ) that can apply to a wide range of Korean populations, including disabled people, was necessary for comprehensive research on improving clinical practice of sexual education and developing sex-related intervention programs. We developed the SOQ and tested its validity with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and multi-trait/-item matrix analyses. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α coefficient for item total correlations. We studied a total of 334 married or previously married adults with no cognitive impairment in the community settings. The eleven survey items were included in the final SOQ. Three factors were found: The first, "personal benefit", was devoted to the impact of one's sexual life and included four questions about the health-promoting effects and their recognition of healthiness, youth, and vitality as benefits of their sexual life. The second, "relational value", included four questions about sex as an expression of love and means of communication, and its effect on the improvement of their relationship with their spouse (partner). The third, "sexual endeavor", included three questions about the handling of sex-related problems, consulting with an expert, and sexual education. The questionnaire can briefly measure the sexual outlook of any married or previously married adult, regardless of disability.Entities:
Keywords: population health; sexual health; surveys and questionnaires
Year: 2020 PMID: 33238440 PMCID: PMC7700134 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
General Characteristics of Participants (N = 334).
| Characteristics | M ± SD 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 48.26 ± 11.09 | |
| 30–39 | 78 (23.4) | |
| 40–49 | 105 (31.4) | |
| 50–49 | 95 (28.4) | |
| >60 | 56 (16.8) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 174 (52.1) | |
| Female | 160 (47.9) | |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 267 (79.9) | |
| Divorce | 33 (9.9) | |
| Other | 34 (10.2) | |
| Religion | ||
| Yes | 206 (61.7) | |
| No | 128 (38.3) | |
| Education level | ||
| ≤Middle school | 36 (10.8) | |
| High school | 74 (22.1) | |
| College or Bachelor | 166 (49.7) | |
| Master or Doctor | 58 (17.4) | |
| Work status | ||
| Employed | 232 (69.5) | |
| Unemployed | 102 (30.5) | |
| Residence | ||
| Seoul | 210 (62.9) | |
| Gyeonggi-do | 124 (37.1) | |
| Chronic disease | ||
| Yes | 92 (27.5) | |
| No | 242 (72.5) | |
| Disability | ||
| Yes | 121 (36.2) | |
| No | 213 (63.8) | |
| Sexual problems | ||
| Yes | 115 (34.4) | |
| No | 219 (65.6) | |
| Importance of sexual life (0 to 10, higher scores mean greater importance) | 6.09 ± 2.32 |
1 Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation.
Factor Analysis of the 11-Item Sexual Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ) for Adult Populations (N = 334).
| Items | Factor Loading | Communality | CVI | ITC (r) | Eigenvalues | VE (%) | CV (%) | Cronbach’s α | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | |||||||||
| Factor 1 (Benefit) | 3.135 | 28.503 | 28.503 | 0.902 | |||||||
| x20 | Sexual life makes me feel alive. | 0.871 | 0.238 | 0.105 | 0.826 | 0.893 | 0.899 | ||||
| x18 | Sexual life gives me peace of mind. | 0.870 | 0.238 | 0.137 | 0.832 | 0.857 | 0.911 | ||||
| x19 | Sexual life increases my self-esteem. | 0.813 | 0.355 | 0.179 | 0.819 | 0.893 | 0.891 | ||||
| x17 | Sexual life increases the motivation to live. | 0.812 | 0.010 | 0.206 | 0.702 | 0.821 | 0.827 | ||||
| Factor 2 (Value) | 2.809 | 25.538 | 54.042 | 0.839 | |||||||
| x14 | Sexual life improves the relationship with the spouse (partner). | 0.131 | 0.846 | 0.103 | 0.743 | 1 | 0.632 | ||||
| x11 | Sexual life is an expression of love. | 0.262 | 0.785 | 0.143 | 0.705 | 0.964 | 0.701 | ||||
| x12 | Sexual life is a means of communication. | 0.267 | 0.767 | 0.059 | 0.663 | 1 | 0.652 | ||||
| x15 | I can discuss a sexual matter with my spouse (partner) | 0.055 | 0.757 | 0.192 | 0.613 | 0.964 | 0.586 | ||||
| Factor 3 (Assertiveness) | 2.138 | 19.435 | 73.477 | 0.787 | |||||||
| x28 | If I have a sex problem, I will consult with an expert. | 0.078 | 0.204 | 0.864 | 0.794 | 1 | 0.677 | ||||
| x29 | If I am given an opportunity, I will receive sex education. | 0.115 | 0.183 | 0.833 | 0.740 | 0.929 | 0.667 | ||||
| x27 | If needed in my sexual life, I will use a sex aid. | 0.347 | 0.026 | 0.723 | 0.644 | 1 | 0.593 | ||||
| Total | 0.867 | ||||||||||
| KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) = 0.865, Total variance explained = 73.477, x2 = 1996.341 ( | |||||||||||
Note: CVI = Content validity index; ITC = Item total correlation; VE = Variance explained; CV = Cumulative variance.
Validity and Reliability of 11 SOQ Items and Three Factors Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 334).
| Item | B | SE | β | CR | Construct Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 (Personal Benefits) | 0.92 | 0.73 | ||||
| x20 | 1.11 | 0.08 | 0.87 | 14.86 * | ||
| x18 | 1.12 | 0.07 | 0.89 | 15.12 * | ||
| x19 | 1.12 | 0.07 | 0.90 | 15.21 * | ||
| x17 | 1.00 | 0.70 | ||||
| Factor 2 (Relational Value) | 0.92 | 0.74 | ||||
| x14 | 1.33 | 0.11 | 0.79 | 11.81 * | ||
| x11 | 1.35 | 0.11 | 0.81 | 11.95 * | ||
| x12 | 1.31 | 0.12 | 0.75 | 11.35 * | ||
| x15 | 1.00 | 0.66 | ||||
| Factor 3 (Sexual Endeavor) | 0.78 | 0.55 | ||||
| x28 | 1.19 | 0.11 | 0.83 | 10.84 * | ||
| x29 | 1.13 | 0.11 | 0.78 | 10.78 * | ||
| x27 | 1.00 | 0.64 | ||||
| Model Fitness: | ||||||
| Factor 1 & 2 (0.55), Factor 1 & 3 (0.43), Factor 2 & 3 (0.42) | ||||||
Note: SE = Standard error; CR = Critical ratio; AVE = Average variance extracted; RMR = Root mean residual; RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation; GFI = Goodness of fit index; CFI = Comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. * p < 0.001.
Figure 1Confirmatory Factor Analysis of 11-Item SOQ.
Correlations of Multi-trait/-item Matrix Analysis for SOQ (N = 334).
| Factor | Item No. | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | SOQ_Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1: | x20 | 0.899 | 0.428 | 0.339 | 0.752 |
| x18 | 0.911 | 0.429 | 0.354 | 0.766 | |
| x19 | 0.891 | 0.525 | 0.406 | 0.811 | |
| x17 | 0.827 | 0.249 | 0.355 | 0.659 | |
| Factor_1 | 1 | 0.456 | 0.412 | 0.843 | |
| Factor 2: | x14 | 0.339 | 0.857 | 0.266 | 0.593 |
| x11 | 0.439 | 0.844 | 0.319 | 0.661 | |
| x12 | 0.422 | 0.820 | 0.257 | 0.616 | |
| x15 | 0.285 | 0.763 | 0.295 | 0.541 | |
| Factor_2 | 0.456 | 1 | 0.347 | 0.735 | |
| Factor 3: | x28 | 0.290 | 0.330 | 0.863 | 0.621 |
| x29 | 0.311 | 0.312 | 0.844 | 0.616 | |
| x27 | 0.430 | 0.237 | 0.809 | 0.636 | |
| Factor_3 | 0.412 | 0.347 | 1 | 0.745 | |
| Importance of sexual life | 0.526 * | 0.374 * | 0.310 * | 0.531 * |
Note: All correlations of multi-trait/-item analysis were significant at the 0.05 level of p-value. * p <0.001.
Differences of 3 Factors’ and Total Scores between Two Groups (N = 334).
| Factor | Disability | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| M ± SD 1 | |||
| Factor 1 | 13.65 ± 3.21 | 12.64 ± 3.20 | 2.763 (0.006) |
| Factor 2 | 15.74 ± 2.43 | 16.14 ± 2.19 | −1.530 (0.127) |
| Factor 3 | 10.08 ± 2.64 | 9.12 ± 2.51 | 3.313 (0.001) |
| Total | 39.48 ± 6.80 | 37.91 ± 6.03 | 2.180 (0.030) |
1 Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation.
Differences of 3 Factors’ and Total Scores between Two Groups (N = 334).
| Factor | Sexual Problems | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| M ± SD 1 | |||
| Factor 1 | 13.24 ± 3.37 | 12.89 ± 3.17 | 0.958 (0.339) |
| Factor 2 | 15.66 ± 2.47 | 16.17 ± 2.17 | −1.957 (0.051) |
| Factor 3 | 9.28 ± 2.76 | 9.57 ± 2.51 | −0.962 (0.337) |
| Total | 38.18 ± 6.87 | 38.64 ± 6.07 | −0.621 (0.535) |
1 Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation.