Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Establishing the content validity of the confidence in performing sexual intercourse and difficulty in performing sexual intercourse questionnaires

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 25, pages 234–240 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The aim of this qualitative analysis was to establish the content validity of two new patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, Confidence in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire (CPSIQ) and Difficulty in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaire (DPSIQ). Six separate qualitative studies (interviews/focus groups) were conducted from December 2009 to August 2010 by a single moderator and included 227 men with erectile dysfunction (ED; mean age: 54 years, 58% Caucasian). In the first three studies, concepts about ED and its treatment that were important and relevant to men with ED were identified. They included: getting and controlling erection; erection hardness; maintaining erection for desired duration; achieving and controlling ejaculation; satisfying partner; changing sexual positions; and frequency and spontaneity of sexual intercourse. In the subsequent two studies, concepts were confirmed and transformed into CPSIQ and DPSIQ items. The last study entailed a cognitive interview of the CPSIQ and DPSIQ to ensure that respondents’ interpretation of the PRO items were consistent with their intended meaning and that both recall periods and response sets were acceptable. After psychometric testing, the CPSIQ and DPSIQ could serve as complementary tools to existing PROs used in ED clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Althof SE, O'Leary MP, Cappelleri JC, Crowley AR, Tseng LJ, Collins S . Impact of erectile dysfunction on confidence, self-esteem and relationship satisfaction after 9 months of sildenafil citrate treatment. J Urol 2006; 176: 2132–2137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Althof SE . Quality of life and erectile dysfunction. Urology 2002; 59: 803–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Araujo AB, Durante R, Feldman HA, Goldstein I, McKinlay JB . The relationship between depressive symptoms and male erectile dysfunction: cross-sectional results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Psychosom Med 1998; 60: 458–465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Althof SE, Leiblum SR, Chevret-Measson M, Hartmann U, Levine SB, McCabe M et al. Psychological and interpersonal dimensions of sexual function and dysfunction. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 793–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cranston-Cuebas MA, Barlow DH . Cognitive and affective contributions to sexual functioning. Ann Rev Sex Res 1990; 1: 119–161.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cappelleri JC, Althof SE, Siegel RL, Shpilsky A, Bell SS, Duttagupta S . Development and validation of the Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire in erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2004; 16: 30–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Swindle R, Cameron A, Rosen R . A 15-item short form of the Psychological and Interpersonal Relationship Scales. Int J Impot Res 2006; 18: 82–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. (accessed December 2009).

  10. DeRogatis LR . Assessment of sexual function/dysfunction via patient reported outcomes. Int J Impot Res 2008; 20: 35–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miles MB, Huberman AM . 1 Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Glaser BG, Strauss AL . The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kirshner B, Guyatt G . A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pontin D, Porter T, McDonagh R . Investigating the effect of erectile dysfunction on the lives of men: a qualitative research study. J Clin Nursing 2002; 11: 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Low W, Ng C, Choo W, Tan H . How do men perceive erectile dysfunction and its treatment? A qualitative study on opinions of men. Aging Male 2006; 9: 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tomlinson JM, Wright D . Impact of erectile dysfunction and its subsequent treatment with sildenafil: qualitative study. BMJ 2004; 328: 1037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L . Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 2011; 14: 967–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Porst H, Vardi Y, Akkus E, Melman A, Park NC, Seftel AD et al. Standards for clinical trials in male sexual dysfunctions. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 414–444.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Araujo AB, Allen KR, Ni X, Rosen RC . Minimal clinically important differences in the vaginal insertion and successful intercourse items of the sexual encounter profile. J Sex Med 2012; 9: 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Stanley E. Althof, Dr Raymond C. Rosen, and Dr Allen Seftel for valuable input into the development of the Confidence and Difficulty in Performing Sexual Intercourse Questionnaires. This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    R P Hayes & M L Meldahl

  2. The Henne Group, San Francisco, CA, USA

    J Henne

  3. Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    A Sontag

Authors
  1. R P Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Henne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M L Meldahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A Sontag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R P Hayes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

RH and AS are full-time employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. JH is President and CEO of The Henne Group, which has completed research agreements with Eli Lilly and Company. MM is a former employee of Eli Lilly and Company.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayes, R., Henne, J., Meldahl, M. et al. Establishing the content validity of the confidence in performing sexual intercourse and difficulty in performing sexual intercourse questionnaires. Int J Impot Res 25, 234–240 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.22

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.22

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links