Male Genital Self-Image Scale (MGSIS): Cutoff Point, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Measurement Properties in Brazilian Men

The Journal of Sexual Medicine - Tập 18 - Trang 1759-1767 - 2021
Guilherme Tavares de Arruda1, Erisvan Vieira da Silva2, Melissa Medeiros Braz2
1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brasil
2Departamento de Fisioterapia e Reabilitação, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brasil

Tóm tắt

ABSTRACTBackgroundConcerns about genital self-image (GSI) can influence sexual function and quality of life, and instruments that assess male GSI, such as the Male Genital Self-Image Scale (MGSIS), need to be adapted and validated in different cultures.AimsTo culturally adapt and validate the measurement properties of MGSIS in Brazilian men, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline, and to create a cutoff point for satisfaction with male GSI.MethodsWe assessed the validity of content through a committee of experts and cognitive interviews. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed using Cronbach’s α and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). We also calculate measurement errors using the Bland and Altman graph. The structural validity was investigated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The hypothesis test for construct validity was assessed using Spearman correlation from MGSIS with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Body Appreciation Scale (BAS-2) and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). To create a cutoff point for satisfaction with the GSI, the item response theory and the classic test theory were used.OutcomesMale’s (i) GSI, (ii) sexual function, (iii) body appreciation, and (iv) self-esteem were assessed.RESULTSIn this study, 518 men with a mean age of 33.90 (±13.83) years participated. The Brazilian version of MGSIS demonstrated good content validity and a single factor that explained 64.57% of the variance. Cronbach’s α and ICC values were 0.905 and 0.806, respectively. By assessing measurement errors, we found no systematic bias in the sample. MGSIS showed a moderate to weak correlation with IIEF, BAS-2 and RSES. A cut-off point of 23 in the MGSIS total score was found to rate satisfaction with the GSI.Clinical TranslationMGSIS is a valid and reliable measurement instrument for measuring male GSI in Brazil.Strengths and LimitationsThis study evaluated the measurement properties of MGSIS according to COSMIN, which is a powerful and useful guideline for measurement properties. However, due to the lack of a gold standard for measuring the GSI, we have not assessed the criterion validity.CONCLUSIONMGSIS is valid, reliable and can be useful to assess the GSI and classify the satisfaction with the GSI of Brazilian men.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Griffiths, 2016, Sex differences in the relationships between body dissatisfaction, quality of life and psychological distress, Aust N Z J Public Health, 40, 518, 10.1111/1753-6405.12538 Milhausen, 2015, Relationships between body image, body composition, sexual functioning, and sexual satisfaction among heterosexual young adults, Arch Sex Behav, 44, 1621, 10.1007/s10508-014-0328-9 Herbenick, 2013, The development and validation of the Male Genital Self-Image Scale: results from a nationally representative probability sample of men in the United States, J Sex Med, 10, 1516, 10.1111/jsm.12124 Saffari, 2016, Cross-cultural adaptation of the male genital self-image scale in Iranian Men, Sex Med, 4, e34, 10.1016/j.esxm.2015.12.005 Veale, 2015, Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men, BJU Int, 115, 978, 10.1111/bju.13010 King, 2019, Social desirability and young men’s self-reports of penis size, J Sex Marital Ther, 45, 452, 10.1080/0092623X.2018.1533905 Sanches, 2018, Does underestimated penile size impact erectile function in healthy men?, Int J Impot Res, 30, 158, 10.1038/s41443-018-0039-1 Barboza, 2018, Anthropometric study of penile length in self-declared Brazilians regarding the color of the skin as white or black: the study of a Myth, Int J Impot Res, 30, 43, 10.1038/s41443-017-0009-z Berman, 2003, Genital self-image as a component of sexual health: relationship between genital self-image, female sexual function, and quality of life measures, J Sex Marital Ther, 29, 11, 10.1080/713847124 Komarnicky, 2019, Genital self-image: associations with other domains of body image and sexual response, J Sex Marital Ther, 45, 524, 10.1080/0092623X.2019.1586018 Schick, 2010, Genital appearance dissatisfaction: implications for women’s genital image self-consciousness, sexual esteem, sexual satisfaction, and sexual risk, Psychol Women Q, 34, 394, 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01584.x Zielinski, 2012, The relationship between pelvic organ prolapse, genital body image, and sexual health, Neurourol Urodyn, 31, 1145, 10.1002/nau.22205 Herbenick, 2010, Development and validation of the female genital self-image scale, J Sex Med, 7, 1822, 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01728.x Pakpour, 2014, Cross-cultural adaptation of the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS) in Iranian female college students, J Sex Res, 51, 646, 10.1080/00224499.2013.821441 Mohammed, 2014, Validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the female genital self-image scale, J Sex Med, 11, 1193, 10.1111/jsm.12494 Ellibes Kaya, 2019, The Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS): cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychometric properties within a Turkish population, Int Urogynecol J, 30, 89, 10.1007/s00192-018-3688-1 Felix, 2017, Brazilian Portuguese version of the Female Genital Self Image Scale (FGSIS) for women seeking abdominoplasty, J Plast, Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 70, 1786, 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.07.007 Mokkink, 2016, The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument, Braz J Phys Ther, 20, 105, 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143 Rosen, 1997, The international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction, Urology, 49, 822, 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0 Wiltink, 2003, Validation of the German version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) in patients with erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease and controls, Int J Impot Res, 15, 192, 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900997 Hwang, 2010, A survey of erectile dysfunction in Taiwan: use of the erection hardness score and quality of erection questionnaire, J Sex Med, 7, 2817, 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01837.x Gonzáles, 2013, Validation of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) for use in Brazil, Arq Bras Cardiol, 101, 176 Tylka, 2015, The body appreciation scale-2: item refinement and psychometric evaluation, Body Image, 12, 53, 10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Junqueira, 2019, Translation and validation of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 in Brazilian adults, Body Image, 31, 160, 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.10.002 Hutz, 2011, Revision of the adaptation, validation, and normatization of the Roserberg self-esteem scale, Avaliação Psicol, 10, 41 Tavakol, 2011, Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha, Int J Med Edu, 2, 53, 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd Cicchetti, 1994, Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology, Psychol Assess, 6, 284, 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 de Vet, 2011, Measurement in medicine - A practical guide Bland, 1999, Measuring agreement in method comparison studies, Stat Methods Med Res, 8, 135, 10.1177/096228029900800204 Cohen, 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Masters, 1982, A Rasch model for partial credit scoring, Psychometrika, 47, 149, 10.1007/BF02296272 Andrade, 2000, Teoria da Resposta ao Item: Conceitos e Aplicações Lorenzo-Seva, 2006, FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model, Behav Res Methods, 38, 88, 10.3758/BF03192753 Tennant, 2007, The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?, Arthritis Care Res, 57, 1358, 10.1002/art.23108