eISSN: 3023-6940
  • Home
  • The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Men (SSS-M)
E-SUBMISSION

Original Research

The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Men (SSS-M)


1 İzmir Bakırçay University, Faculty of Health Siceence, Department of Women’s Health and Diseases Nursing, İzmir, Turkey
2 Ege University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit İzmir, Turkey


DOI : 10.33719/yud.2023;18-2-1196628
New J Urol. 2023;18(2):145-155

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study was carried out to determine whether the Turkish version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Men (SSS-M), a modified version of the Women Sexual Satisfaction Scale (SSS-W) developed by Meston and his friends is a valid and reliable tool or not.

Material and Methods: This is a methodological study and was conducted between March and July 2021. After the language translation and content validity studies of the 30-item of which Likert-type scale and five sub-dimensions a preliminary application was carried out on a group of 30 people. Data were obtained from 193 male individuals on an online platform after ethical approval. Whereas for the scope\content validity of the scale Content Validity was used, to test for validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed. To verify its dependableness, the Cronbach Alpha score and item-total correlation score were tested. The time invariance of the scale was evaluated with a test-retest.

Results: The scale and content validity was reviewed by eight experts. The construct validity of the scale was performed by using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor loads were determined between  .55 and .87, and exploratory factor loads were determined between 0.34  and .83. The correlation coefficient between the score of each item and the scale score was determined as r=.35-.80 (p<.001). The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency and reliability coefficients were found as .95 in the total of the scale and were found as.82-.95 in its sub-dimensions. No significant difference was found in the test-retest reliability analysis (p>.05). The weighted kappa values of test-retest correlation values of the items were 0.79-0.90.

Conclusion: As a result of this study, it was determined that the Turkish version of the five-dimension “ SSS-M” is a valid and reliable four-dimensional instrument and can be used in research and clinic.

Keywords: Sexual satisfaction, men, validity, reliability


ABSTRACT

Objective: This study was carried out to determine whether the Turkish version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Men (SSS-M), a modified version of the Women Sexual Satisfaction Scale (SSS-W) developed by Meston and his friends is a valid and reliable tool or not.

Material and Methods: This is a methodological study and was conducted between March and July 2021. After the language translation and content validity studies of the 30-item of which Likert-type scale and five sub-dimensions a preliminary application was carried out on a group of 30 people. Data were obtained from 193 male individuals on an online platform after ethical approval. Whereas for the scope\content validity of the scale Content Validity was used, to test for validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed. To verify its dependableness, the Cronbach Alpha score and item-total correlation score were tested. The time invariance of the scale was evaluated with a test-retest.

Results: The scale and content validity was reviewed by eight experts. The construct validity of the scale was performed by using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor loads were determined between  .55 and .87, and exploratory factor loads were determined between 0.34  and .83. The correlation coefficient between the score of each item and the scale score was determined as r=.35-.80 (p<.001). The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency and reliability coefficients were found as .95 in the total of the scale and were found as.82-.95 in its sub-dimensions. No significant difference was found in the test-retest reliability analysis (p>.05). The weighted kappa values of test-retest correlation values of the items were 0.79-0.90.

Conclusion: As a result of this study, it was determined that the Turkish version of the five-dimension “ SSS-M” is a valid and reliable four-dimensional instrument and can be used in research and clinic.

Keywords: Sexual satisfaction, men, validity, reliability

Resources

  • 1.Yoobin P, MacDonald G. Single and Partnered Individuals’ Sexual Satisfaction as a Function of Sexual Desire and Activities: Results Using a Sexual Satisfaction Scale Demonstrating Measurement Invariance Across Partnership Status. Archives of sexual behavior. 2022; 51(1): 547-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02153-y
  • 2.Scott V.C, Sandberg J.G, Harper J.M, Miller R. B. The impact of depressive symptoms and health on sexual satisfaction for older couples: implications for clinicians. Contemporary Family Therapy. 2012;34,376-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9198-2
  • 3.Çetin S, Aslan E. The analysis of female sexual functions, sexual satisfaction and depressive symptoms according to menstrual cycle phases, Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2022;37:2, 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2020.1792875
  • 4.Štulhofer A, Jurin T, Graham C, Enzlin P, Træen B. Sexual well-being in older men and women: Construction and validation of a multi-dimensional measure in four European countries.” Journal of Happiness Studies. (2019): 20(7) 2329-2350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0049-1
  • 5.Lawrance K.A, Byers E S. Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships. 1995;2(4),267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x
  • 6.Offman A, Matheson K. Sexual compatibility and sexual functioning in intimate relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2015;1(2):31-39.
  • 7.Nimbi, F. M., Tripodi, F., Rossi, R., & Simonelli, C. Expanding the analysis of psychosocial factors of sexual desire in men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018;15(2): 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.11.227
  • 8.Meston C, Trapnell P. Development and validation of a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women: the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (SSS-W). Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2005;2,66-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20107.x
  • 9.Freihart BK, Stephenson K, Crosby CL, Meston CM. The Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Men (SSS-M). https://labs.la.utexas.edu/mestonlab/the-sexual-satisfaction-scale-for-men-sss-m/ (Erişim Tarihi: 13.09.2022).
  • 10.Çapık C, Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş rehber. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing. 2018;26(3):199-210. https://doi.org/10.26650/FNJN397481
  • 11.Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. 2002, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • 12.Beaton D.E, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M. B. Guidelines for the process of crosscultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE. 2000; 25, 3186–3191.
  • 13.Erkut S, Alarcon O, Garcia Coll C, Troop L.R, Vazguez Garcia H. A. The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 1999; 30, 206–218.
  • 14.Ghobadzadeh S, Hasani J, Mohammadkhani S, Akbari M. A Multidimensional Model of Sexual Health Scale for Men; Design and Psychometrically Evaluation of Iranian Version. Iranian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing. 2019; 7(2): 13-21. https://doi.org/10.21859/ijpn-07203
  • 15.Sanders S.A, Herbenick D, Reece M, et al. The development and validation of a brief quality of sexual experience (QSE) scale: Results from a nationally representative sample of men and women in the United States. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2409–2417. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12198
  • 16.Viren S, Barron D. Translation and validation of body image instruments: Challenges, good practice guidelines, and reporting recommendations for test adaptation. Body image . 2019;3(1): 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.014
  • 17.Şimşek Ö.F. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. 2007; Cem Web Ofset, Ankara. 18. Orçan F. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first?. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2018;9(4): 414-421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
  • 18.Ron D, Norton B. Investment and motivation in language learning: What’s the difference?. Language Teaching. 2021:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000057
  • 19.Goyal A.K, Bakshi J, Panda N.K., et al. A hybrid method for the cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology. 2021;6(1): 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-020-00039-3
  • 20.Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. 2012; Ankara.
  • 21.Şahin M, Eren A. Jamovi: an easy to use statistical software for the social scientists. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2019;6(4):670-692. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.661803
  • 22.Mueller R. O, Hancock G.R. Structural equation modeling. The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. Routledge. 2018; 445-456.(e-book)
  • 23.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı. (Çev. Ed. Mustafa Baloğlu). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. 2015; Ankara
  • 24.Çetin SA, Aslan E. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women. Sexuality & Culture. 2018;22(3), 881-893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9499-1