Sexual Dysfunction Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Dysfunction Scale (SDS) is a comprehensive psychometric instrument developed by Marita P. McCabe to evaluate the various factors associated with specific sexual dysfunctions experienced by both males and females. The scale is structured into eight distinct sections covering a wide range of issues, from the nature of the problem to relationship impact.

Developed throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, the SDS evolved from a guided interview format, drawing initial items from established literature, into a standardized, forced-choice questionnaire. The measure was validated through testing on both clinical and nonclinical populations experiencing sexual difficulties, culminating in a third draft that is included in academic compendiums. It assesses medical and lifestyle factors, relationship quality, duration, frequency, severity, and emotional responses related to the dysfunction.

Keywords

Sexual Dysfunction Scale, SDS, Marita P. McCabe, sexual assessment, premature ejaculation, erectile problems, orgasmic dysfunction, female unresponsiveness, vaginismus, psychometrics, clinical assessment.

Authors

Marita P. McCabe, Deakin University

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Dysfunction Scale (SDS) is to systematically evaluate the specific psychological, relational, and physiological factors that are associated with various sexual dysfunctions in individuals. It is designed to provide a deep, detailed assessment beyond simple diagnostic classification.

The scale employs a two-tiered approach: respondents first identify which sexual dysfunctions they are currently experiencing via a general question, and subsequently complete detailed, tailored sections corresponding only to their particular problem areas. This ensures efficient and focused data collection regarding the severity, duration, and impact of the specific dysfunction(s).

Construct

The SDS measures the multidimensional construct of sexual dysfunctions and their associated etiological and maintenance factors. The instrument is divided into eight specific subscales, designed to capture the complexity of psychosexual difficulties across genders. It addresses not only the behavioral manifestation of the dysfunction but also the context in which it occurs, including medical history, lifestyle choices, and the quality of the respondent’s intimate relationship.

Key dimensions assessed include the frequency and severity of the problem, the respondent’s attitudes toward and responses to sexual activity, and the overall impact of the dysfunction on the relationship (if applicable). This comprehensive approach allows clinicians and researchers to develop a nuanced understanding of the individual’s sexual health profile.

Validity

The validity of the SDS is supported by both its construction methodology and empirical findings related to partner concordance. The scale’s development involved deriving initial items directly from established clinical literature concerning the factors associated with each specific sexual dysfunction, ensuring strong content validity.

Empirical evidence of validity was demonstrated by assessing agreement between subjects and their partners. For subjects who had a partner (N=89), the concordance rate between the subject’s report of their problem and their partner’s report was found to be 82%. This high level of agreement provides evidence for the scale’s ability to accurately reflect the nature of the problem as perceived by those involved, supporting its clinical utility.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s Alpha) for 120 subjects presenting to a sexual behavior clinic for treatment. The reliability coefficients demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency across the various subscales, given the diverse nature of the constructs measured. The reliability values for the eight sections are summarized below:

• Nature of the sexual problem (30 items): Alpha = 0.63 (N=120)

• Premature ejaculation (33 items): Alpha = 0.71 (N=26)

• Erectile problems (33 items): Alpha = 0.72 (N=38)

• Retarded ejaculation (31 items): Alpha = 0.69 (N=11)

• Orgasmic dysfunction (48 items): Alpha = 0.63 (N=26)

• Female unresponsiveness (51 items): Alpha = 0.73 (N=18)

• Vaginismus (31 items): Alpha = 0.72 (N=14)

• Lack of sexual interest (91 items): Alpha = 0.61 (N=24)

Note that because some subjects experienced more than one sexual dysfunction, the total number of dysfunctions assessed across the categories exceeds the number of total respondents (N=120).

Factor Analysis

Details regarding a formal factor analysis (e.g., Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis) are not provided in the source material. The scale structure suggests an eight-factor model based on the clinically defined sexual dysfunction categories and associated contextual factors (medical, lifestyle, relational).

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: The scale uses a forced-choice format, requiring respondents to select among specific options. Responses consist of either simple yes/no answers or quantified responses utilizing a 5-point Likert-scale.

Language Available: English (Implied)

Population Group: Adults experiencing sexual dysfunction, including both clinical subjects seeking treatment and nonclinical subjects identified as having sexual difficulties.

Age Group: Adult

Population Details: The scale was developed and refined through testing on various samples, including an initial cohort of 55 individuals with sexual dysfunction, a broader sexually dysfunctional population (clinical and nonclinical), and a final clinical sample of 120 subjects.

Test Methodology: The scale is administered as a questionnaire. Completion time is variable, ranging from 10 minutes to 50 minutes, depending on the number of specific dysfunctions the respondent endorses and subsequently completes detailed sections for. Scoring is objective.

Keywords

Clinical assessment, sexology, relationship factors, psychosexual disorders, forced-choice format, internal consistency, psychometrics, sexual health.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Marita P. McCabe, School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria, Australia 3125

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The scale and its scoring code may be obtained directly from the author, Marita P. McCabe, for use with clinical or research subjects.

Fee: Not specified in the source material.

Test Year: The scale was developed through a 10-year process spanning the late 1980s and 1990s. The version included in the compendium is the third draft, refined following studies conducted in 1994 (McCabe, 1994a, 1994b).

Reference’s

McCabe, M. P. (1994a). Childhood, adolescent and current psychological factors associated with sexual dysfunction. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 9, 267–276.

McCabe, M. P. (1994b). The influence of the quality of relationship on sexual dysfunction. Australian Journal of Marriage and the Family, 15, 2–8.

Items of the Sexual Dysfunction Scale

The Sexual Dysfunction Scale (SDS) is divided into eight main sections, designed to evaluate factors related to specific sexual dysfunctions. Respondents are guided to complete sections relevant to their reported problem(s). The eight sections are:

1. Nature of the sexual problem (30 items)

2. Premature ejaculation (33 items)

3. Erectile problems (33 items)

4. Retarded ejaculation (31 items)

5. Orgasmic dysfunction (48 items)

6. Female unresponsiveness (51 items)

7. Vaginismus (31 items)

8. Lack of sexual interest (91 items)

For each specific dysfunction endorsed, respondents answer detailed questions concerning the following factors:

• Medical and lifestyle factors.

• Quality of the respondent’s relationship (if the person is in a relationship).

• Length of time the dysfunction has been in place.

• The frequency and severity of the dysfunction.

• Attitudes to sexual activities and responses to these activities.

• Response to the dysfunction.

• Impact of the dysfunction on the respondent’s relationship (if relevant).