Female Partner’s Communication During Sexual Activity Scale

Abstract

The Female Partner’s Communication During Sexual Activity Scale (FPCDSAS) is a specialized psychometrics instrument developed to assess how female respondents perceive their ability to communicate with a partner during sexual encounters. Specifically, the scale measures two key dimensions: the perceived ease of communication and the frequency of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies used to express sexual preferences and desired stimulation. Developed through a rigorous, iterative process involving three studies, the final instrument consists of six items across two distinct subscales. It exhibits strong internal consistency and acceptable test-retest reliability, demonstrating both convergent and discriminant validity against established sexual function and personality measures.

Keywords

Sexual communication, sexual preferences, female sexual function, communication frequency, sexual psychometrics, scale development, sexual behavior.

Authors

Alexandra McIntyre-Smith, William A. Fisher (University of Western Ontario)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Female Partner’s Communication During Sexual Activity Scale is to quantify the subjective experience of communication for women during sexual activity with a male partner. The scale aims to capture two crucial aspects of this interaction: how easy the respondent finds it to communicate her needs (e.g., telling or showing a partner what to do) and how often she actually employs various communication strategies (verbal and nonverbal) to guide her partner toward desired stimulation or sexual preferences.

This measurement tool provides researchers and clinicians with a reliable, concise instrument for assessing active sexual communication, a factor often shown to be critical in facilitating positive sexual outcomes and overall sexual satisfaction for women.

Construct

The FPCDSAS measures the construct of Active Sexual Communication during Intercourse, conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising both self-efficacy (Ease of Communication) and behavioral output (Frequency of Communication). The scale is structured around two empirically derived subscales:

• Ease of Sexual Communication: This subscale assesses the perceived difficulty or ease associated with initiating specific communication behaviors, such as telling or showing a partner how to provide stimulation or asking for clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm.
• Frequency of Sexual Communication: This subscale measures the reported frequency (percentage of time) with which the respondent actually engages in specific communication behaviors, such as telling or showing a partner what feels good during sex.

Validity

Substantial evidence supports the scale’s validity, particularly in terms of convergent and discriminant validity.

Convergent Validity: As hypothesized, scores on the FPCDSAS correlated positively with scores on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) total score (r = .30–.37). Correlations were also observed with specific FSFI subscales, including Desire (r = .19–.23), Arousal (r = .19–.22), and Satisfaction (r = .26–.30). Further evidence of convergent validity was established through correlations with the Sexual Opinion Survey measure of erotophobia-erotophilia (r = .16–.27) and the Dyadic Sexual Regulation Scale (r = .33–.47), which measures the respondent’s tendency toward active participation and initiation of sexual activity. Additionally, the total scale and subscale scores correlated significantly with frequency of intercourse (r = .25–.47) and frequency of masturbation (r = .22–.26).

Discriminant Validity: The scale demonstrated freedom from common measurement biases by showing no correlation with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale or with standard measures of depression and anxiety, confirming that the FPCDSAS specifically assesses sexual communication rather than general distress or response bias.

Reliability

The FPCDSAS exhibits good psychometric properties regarding reliability across the three developmental studies.

Internal Consistency: In Study III, where all six final items were utilized, the internal consistency of the total scale was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of .83. In earlier studies (I and II) using only four of the final items, the internal consistency was slightly lower (α = .76–.77). Corrected item-to-total correlations across all three studies ranged from r = .54–.63, and inter-item correlations ranged from r = .27–.64, supporting the coherence of the items.

Subscale Reliability: While the two subscales contained only two or three items each, resulting in somewhat lower internal consistency estimates (α = .64–.79), the inter-correlations between subscale items (r = .51–.64) suggest that combining these items into subscales is psychometrically justified.

Test-Retest Reliability: Four-week test-retest reliability was found to be reasonable for the total scale (r = .72), indicating temporal stability. Test-retest reliability was also reasonable for both subscales (r = .65–.67).

Factor Analysis

Scale development was an iterative process conducted over three studies, beginning with an initial pool of 20 items administered to 198 female undergraduate students. Item refinement relied heavily on exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and individual item analyses.

The initial EFA led to the deletion of 14 items due to poor empirical performance or weak conceptual overlap with the construct. The remaining six items were subjected to expert review by 16 graduate students for clarity and wording feedback. Following the second administration to 242 participants, two more items were deleted, and two new items were written. The final six items were retained after the third study, based on satisfactory item analyses and test-retest reliability findings.

Decision criteria for item deletion were stringent, adhering to established scale development guidelines (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003; Streiner & Norman, 2008). These criteria included screening for range restriction (low standard deviations), poor inter-item correlations (r < .30), low corrected item-total correlations (r < .30), high cross-loadings, poor communalities (< .30), low clarity ratings by expert raters (M < 5.5 on a 7-point scale), and poor conceptual overlap.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological scale

Format: 6 items total, divided into two subscales (Ease: 3 items, 7-point scale; Frequency: 3 items, 6-point scale).

Language Available: English

Population Group: Adult women (specifically, heterosexually active females)

Age Group: 17 to 49 years (Mean age approximately 19 years in development samples)

Population Details: Three samples of female undergraduate students (N=198, N=242, N=211) who reported engaging in sexual intercourse with a male partner at least twice per month. Researchers note that the scale is currently most appropriate for use with this specific population, pending validation on broader samples.

Test Methodology: Self-administered survey, typically completed privately. Administration can be via the Internet or paper-and-pencil. Completion time ranges from 2 to 5 minutes.

Keywords

Sexual function, communication strategies, college population, dyadic interaction, sexual satisfaction, exploratory factor analysis, self-efficacy, sexual health.

Authors

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

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Correspondence Address: University of Western Ontario (Affiliation during scale development)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Information regarding current licensing and usage permissions is not provided in the source material.

Fee: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Test Year: Developed through a series of studies (Study I, II, and III), with development work cited in academic references from the 1980s to 2008, suggesting completion around or prior to the publication of the entry.

Reference’s

• Catania, J. A., McDermott, L. V., & Wood, J. A. (1984). Assessment of locus of control: Situational specificity in the sexual context. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 310–324.
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
• Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobiaerotophilia as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151.
• Hayes, R. D., Dennerstein, L., Bennett, C. M., Sidat, M., Gurrin, L. C., & Fairley, C. K. (2008). Risk factors for female sexual dysfunction in the general population: Exploring factors associated with low sexual function and sexual distress. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 1681–1693.
• Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239.
• Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
• Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., et al. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208.
• Streiner, D. L. & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Items of the Female Partner’s Communication During Sexual Activity Scale

Instructions: The following questions ask about your thoughts and feelings concerning sexual activities with a partner and your sexual experiences. You are asked to rate each item on the scale provided. Please check off one box per item to indicate your response.

Items 1-3 are rated on a 7-point scale (Very Difficult to Very Easy):

1. Telling my partner what to do to stimulate me during intercourse would be:
2. Showing my partner what to do to stimulate me during intercourse would be:
3. Asking my partner to stimulate me to orgasm (i.e., by massaging my genitals/clitoris) when I have intercourse with my partner would be:

Items 4-6 are rated on a 6-point frequency scale (0% of the time to 100% of the time):

4. When having sex with a partner, how often do you tell your partner what feels good? (Response options: 0% of the time, 1–25% of the time, 26–50% of the time, 51–75% of the time, 76–99% of the time, 100% of the time)

5. When having sex with a partner, how often do you show your partner what feels good? (Response options: 0% of the time, 1–25% of the time, 26–50% of the time, 51–75% of the time, 76–99% of the time, 100% of the time)

6. When having sex with a partner, how often do you ask your partner to stimulate your clitoris to orgasm? (Response options: 0% of the time, 1–25% of the time, 26–50% of the time, 51–75% of the time, 76–99% of the time, 100% of the time)