Global Sexual Functioning: A Single Summary Score for Nowinski and LoPiccolo’s Sexual History Form (SHF)

Abstract

The Global Sexual Functioning (GSF) score represents a psychometrically validated single-summary scoring methodology developed for the Sexual History Form (SHF), an assessment instrument originally designed by Joseph K. Nowinski and Joseph LoPiccolo (1979) and later expanded by Leslie R. Schover and colleagues (1982, 1988). Although the comprehensive SHF comprises 46 multiple-choice self-report items spanning a wide range of behavioral, subjective, and physiological dimensions of human sexuality, the historical clinical utility of the SHF was hindered by its reliance on isolated, item-by-item analysis without an aggregated index. To resolve this limitation, Laura Creti, Catherine S. Fichten, Eva Libman, Rhonda Amsel, William Brender, Leslie R. Schover, and Dennis Kalogeropoulos formulated the GSF scoring algorithm (Creti et al., 1987, 1988, 1998). The GSF condenses 12 sex-specific representative items into a continuous composite metric bounded between 0 and 1, where lower scores signify superior sexual functioning and higher scores reflect greater levels of psychosexual difficulty or dysfunction.

The GSF evaluates fundamental dimensions of sexual experience, including frequency of sexual intercourse, ideal sexual desire, behavioral frequency of sexual desire, solitary masturbation, partner sexual arousal, orgasmic capability across varied sexual contexts (e.g., masturbation, partner manual stimulation, sexual intercourse, vibratory stimulation), erectile and ejaculatory parameters for males, and vaginal lubrication, dyspareunia, and coital pain for females. Methodologically, the score converts individual item ratings with variable response formats (ranging from 5-point to 9-point scales) into standardized proportions of maximum values, sums these proportions, and computes an unweighted average based on valid, non-missing entries. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong test-retest reliability ($r = .92$ to $.98$) and acceptable internal consistency ($lpha = .50$ to $.70$), reflecting the construct’s multidimensional nature. Extensive construct, known-groups, and convergent validity have been confirmed across sex therapy interventions, pelvic floor disorders, urological and gynecological surgeries, chronic illness populations, and healthy aging cohorts.

Keywords

Global Sexual Functioning, Sexual History Form, SHF, sexual dysfunction, psychometrics, sex therapy, sexual desire, erectile functioning, female sexual arousal, orgasmic capability

Authors

The Global Sexual Functioning (GSF) summary score was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated through a collaborative clinical research initiative led by investigators based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and Cleveland, Ohio, USA:

• Laura Creti, Ph.D. — Information and Clinical Research Program (ICFP), Department of Psychiatry, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; McGill University. (Correspondence: ICFP, Jewish General Hospital, 4333 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1E4; E-mail: [email protected]).
• Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital; Department of Psychology, Dawson College; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• Rhonda Amsel, M.Sc. — Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• William Brender, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital; Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• Leslie R. Schover, Ph.D. — Center for Sexual and Reproductive Function, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
• Dennis Kalogeropoulos, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• Eva Libman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

The original parent instrument, the Sexual History Form, was developed by Joseph K. Nowinski, Ph.D., and Joseph LoPiccolo, Ph.D. (1979) at the University of Connecticut and the Stony Brook Sex Therapy Center, with subsequent modifications by Leslie R. Schover and Soren B. Jensen (1988).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Global Sexual Functioning (GSF) score is to provide researchers, sex therapists, psychologists, and medical practitioners with an empirically derived, unified, and mathematically sound composite score reflecting an individual’s overall level of sexual functioning, utilizing selected items from the 46-item Sexual History Form (SHF). Historically, the SHF was developed primarily as a comprehensive clinical intake interview substitute and diagnostic questionnaire designed to align with early behavioral sex therapy assessment standards (Nowinski & LoPiccolo, 1979; Schover et al., 1982). Because each item on the original SHF employed diverse response formats, ranging from dichotomous responses to 5-, 6-, and 9-point Likert-style categorical options, researchers and clinicians were constrained to analyzing the questionnaire exclusively on an item-by-item basis. This atomized approach introduced substantial statistical challenges, including inflated Type I error rates across multiple statistical comparisons, an inability to conduct linear composite modeling, and the absence of a standardized index to track longitudinal clinical change over the course of treatment.

The GSF score resolves these clinical and methodological challenges by synthesizing 12 key sex-specific items into a standardized index ranging between 0 and 1. Clinically, the instrument serves several interconnected purposes:

• Screening and Triage: It allows primary care physicians, urologists, gynecologists, and mental health professionals to screen rapidly for generalized sexual dysfunction using an established scoring threshold or sample split (e.g., mean or median split).
• Treatment Outcome Monitoring: It supplies a sensitive, continuous dependent variable to track efficacy during cognitive-behavioral sex therapy, pharmacological treatments (such as vasoactive intracavernous pharmacotherapy or phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors), pelvic floor physical therapy, biofeedback, and surgical interventions.
• Evaluating Chronic Illness and Medical Interventions: The scale has been extensively deployed to delineate the impact of oncological treatments, abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy (Weber et al., 1999), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; Libman et al., 1989), inguinal hernia repair (Libman et al., 1991), gestational trophoblastic disease (Petersen et al., 2005), and substance-dependence therapies like methadone maintenance (Brown et al., 2005).
• Epidemiological and Gerontological Research: It facilitates the investigation of sexual behaviors, attitudes, and physiological capacity across the adult lifespan, permitting empirical comparisons between younger and older adults (Creti & Libman, 1989).

Psychological Construct

The Global Sexual Functioning metric operationalizes sexual health not as an isolated physiological reflex, but as an integrative, multidimensional psychosexual construct. This construct spans behavioral frequencies, subjective appetitive states, psychological arousal, reflex physiological functioning, and somatic comfort during sexual encounters. Reflecting significant anatomical and physiological differences in sexual expression and sexual difficulties, the GSF operationalizes male and female sexual functioning through parallel yet distinct 12-item sets drawn from the 46-item SHF.

1. Appetitive and Behavioral Frequency Dimensions

Both male and female GSF configurations incorporate foundational behavioral parameters of sexual interaction:

• Dyadic Coital/Sexual Frequency (Item 1): Assesses how frequently the respondent and their partner engage in sexual activity or intercourse, scaled from “more than once a day” to “not at all.”
• Ideal Sexual Frequency (Item 2): Quantifies the respondent’s appetitive drive and subjective baseline preference for sexual frequency. Discrepancies between actual and ideal frequencies often reveal sexual desire discrepancies within couples.
• Internal Sexual Desire Experience (Item 6): Probes the spontaneous subjective occurrence of sexual desire, cognitive sexual interest, initiation planning, and sexual frustration resulting from sexual lack.
• Autosexual Activity / Solitary Masturbation (Item 7): Gauges the baseline frequency with which the respondent engages in solitary sexual self-stimulation to orgasm, capturing autosexual drive independent of relationship dynamics.

2. Subjective Sexual Arousal and Psychological Reactivity

The construct captures the psychological experience of being “turned on” during partner-involved sexual activity:

• Subjective Sexual Excitement (Item 16): Measures how consistently the respondent experiences subjective feelings of sexual arousal, erotic pleasure, and psychological excitement during intimate contact with their partner.

3. Physiological and Reflexive Capacity: Male Configuration

The male GSF includes physiological items calibrated to erectile stability and ejaculatory control:

• Ejaculatory Latency / Rapid Climax (Item 10): Quantifies whether climax occurs prematurely during attempted vaginal penetration.
• Erectile Induction (Item 18): Evaluates difficulty obtaining an erection prior to intercourse.
• Erectile Maintenance (Item 19): Evaluates difficulty sustaining an erection once intercourse has commenced.
• Erectile Rigidity (Item 22): Captures typical degree of penile rigidity (rated from 0% to 100% of full erection).
• Contextual Orgasmic Attainment (Items 23, 24, 25): Measures the conditional likelihood of achieving orgasm across masturbation, partner genital manual caressing, and intercourse.

4. Physiological and Reflexive Capacity: Female Configuration

The female GSF assesses orgasmic capacity across diverse sexual contexts, physiological arousal, and genitopelvic comfort:

• Contextual Orgasmic Attainment (Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27): Assesses orgasm attainment through masturbation, partner manual stimulation, coitus alone, vibratory or mechanical stimulation, and coitus paired with simultaneous clitoral caressing.
• Dyspareunia and Genital Pain (Item 29): Evaluates the presence and frequency of coital genital pain.
• Somatic Lubrication and Arousal Reflexes (Item 37): Evaluates physiological arousal signs, including vaginal lubrication, increased pulse and respiration, and genital/breast sensations during sexual interaction.

Theoretical Framework

The GSF score rests upon early behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, and biopsychosocial paradigms of human sexuality, rooted in the foundational work of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson (1966, 1970), Helen Singer Kaplan (1974, 1979), and Joseph LoPiccolo (1979; Schover et al., 1982).

1. The Multiphase Linear Sexual Response Model

Masters and Johnson pioneered the human sexual response cycle, characterizing it as a sequential physiological progression through excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Kaplan modified this framework into a triphasic construct comprising:

1. Desire: Appetitive interest, fantasies, and motivational drive mediated by neuroendocrine mechanisms.
2. Arousal / Vasocongestion: Parasympathetically mediated physiological responses, including penile erection in men and vaginal lubrication, tenting, and labial engorgement in women.
3. Orgasm: Sympathetically mediated rhythmic muscular contractions of the pelvic floor and perineal musculature accompanied by peak sensory release.

The GSF items were chosen to reflect these physiological and appetitive phases, ensuring that sexual difficulties at each stage are captured in the overall summary score.

2. Cognitive-Behavioral and Social Learning Formulations

LoPiccolo and colleagues introduced cognitive and behavioral conceptualizations to sexual dysfunction assessment. Rather than treating sexual dysfunctions exclusively as psychodynamic conflicts, LoPiccolo posited that sexual difficulties often stem from performance anxiety, maladaptive cognitions, spectatoring (self-monitoring during sex), partner communication deficits, and conditioned avoidance. By combining behavioral measures (intercourse frequency, masturbation habits) with subjective appraisal items (arousal consistency, pain interference), the GSF operationalizes sexual function within this cognitive-behavioral tradition.

3. Biopsychosocial and Contextual Perspectives

In later revisions (Schover & Jensen, 1988; Creti et al., 1998), the scale was conceptualized through a biopsychosocial lens. This framework recognizes that vascular, neurological, endocrinological, and musculoskeletal pathologies (e.g., pelvic organ prolapse, diabetes, post-surgical trauma) interact with relationship satisfaction, aging, and psychological distress. The GSF reflects this integration by including items addressing organic limitations (such as erectile rigidity or vaginal tightness) alongside psychological and relationship variables.

Validity

The GSF summary score has demonstrated robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across healthy, clinical, and chronic illness cohorts.

1. Known-Groups and Clinical Discriminant Validity

The GSF differentiates individuals with diagnosed sexual dysfunctions from well-functioning community controls:

• Female Diagnostic Differentiation: Creti et al. (1988) demonstrated that women with clinically diagnosed sexual dysfunctions exhibited significantly worse GSF scores ($M = 0.68, SD = 0.17$) than sexually well-functioning women ($M = 0.49, SD = 0.14$), confirming the scale’s sensitivity to psychosexual distress (note: higher scores indicate greater dysfunction).
• Male Diagnostic Differentiation: Creti et al. (1987) and Kalogeropoulos (1991) confirmed that the male GSF score reliably separated men presenting with erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, or hypoactive sexual desire from asymptomatic peers.
• Genitopelvic Pain Syndromes: Reissing et al. (2003) evaluated the GSF in women diagnosed with vaginismus and vulvar vestibulitis syndrome (provoked vestibulodynia), finding significantly poorer sexual functioning compared to pain-free controls ($M = 0.38$).

2. Convergent and Correlational Validity

Construct validity has been corroborated through correlations with established psychosexual and psychological instruments:

• Sexual Satisfaction and Attitudes: In both sexes, the GSF score correlates significantly with standardized measures of sexual satisfaction, repertoire diversity, sexual knowledge, and liberal sexual attitudes (Creti et al., 1987; Creti & Libman, 1989; Meana & Nunnink, 2006).
• Cognitive Factors: Female GSF scores show significant associations with sexual self-efficacy, sexual harmony, and the female’s sexual efficacy expectations regarding her male partner (Creti & Libman, 1989). Meana and Nunnink (2006) confirmed that cognitive distraction during sexual activity correlates meaningfully with GSF impairment.
• Instrument Cross-Validation: The female GSF was employed as a primary concurrent validation criterion during the development and psychometric testing of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse—Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ; Rogers et al., 2001) and its short form, the PISQ-12 (Rogers et al., 2003).

3. Sensitivity to Age and Longitudinal Interventions

The GSF is sensitive to developmental trajectories and clinical interventions:

• Age Sensitivity: Research demonstrates that GSF scores capture normative age-related changes in sexual functioning. Younger women (aged 21–46) score significantly better ($M = 0.46, SD = 0.03$) than older women (aged 65 and older; $M = 0.62, SD = 0.16$; Creti et al., 1988). Parallel age effects have been documented in men (Brown et al., 2005; Libman et al., 1989, 1991).
• Treatment Responsiveness: Bergeron et al. (2001) assessed women undergoing group cognitive-behavioral therapy, surface electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback, or vestibulectomy for dyspareunia, demonstrating statistically significant improvements in GSF scores from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up. Similar responsiveness was documented by Kalogeropoulos (1991) in men receiving vasoactive intracavernous pharmacotherapy.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the GSF demonstrates high temporal stability and moderate internal consistency:

• Test-Retest Reliability (Temporal Stability): The GSF demonstrates high stability across test-retest intervals in stable populations. Creti et al. (1988) reported a test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .92$. In longitudinal evaluations of clinical surgical controls, Libman et al. (1989) identified test-retest reliability coefficients reaching $r = .98$.
• Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the GSF composite score range from $lpha = .50$ to $lpha = .70$ across independent male and female cohorts (Creti et al., 1988). In psychometric theory, moderate internal consistency is expected for index measures that aggregate distinct physiological and behavioral domains (e.g., pain, frequency, autosexual behavior, erectile capacity), as these dimensions do not necessarily covary in a strictly homogeneous manner.
• Item-Level Stability: Longitudinal evaluations of healthy aging cohorts confirmed that individual behavioral items (such as coital frequency and masturbatory incidence) show consistent test-retest correlations over multi-week intervals (Creti et al., 1998).

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the 46-item Sexual History Form and its 12-item GSF scoring subsets reflects the balance between multidimensional clinical coverage and a single-factor summary score.

1. Structural Nature of the GSF Composite

In psychometrics, a distinction is made between latent effect indicators (where a single underlying construct causes variations across identical manifestations, as in depressive affect) and causal or formative indicators (where distinct functional dimensions collectively define an aggregate state; Bollen & Lennox, 1991). The GSF functions as a standardized formative composite index. Factor analyses of the comprehensive SHF demonstrate that items load onto distinct functional domains:

1. Sexual Desire / Frequency Factor: High loadings from Items 1, 2, 6, and 7 (loadings ranging from .55 to .82).
2. Orgasmic Capability Factor: High loadings from contextual orgasm items (Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; loadings ranging from .60 to .88).
3. Physiological Erectile Function Factor (Men): Concentrated loadings from Items 18, 19, and 22 (loadings > .70).
4. Genitopelvic Pain and Lubrication Factor (Women): Specific loadings from Items 29 and 37.

2. Unidimensional Higher-Order Representation

When the 12 selected items are entered into an unconstrained exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a strong primary general factor emerges, accounting for approximately 35% to 48% of the total variance across diverse samples. In confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models testing a single higher-order “Global Sexual Functioning” factor governing these domains, acceptable goodness-of-fit indices have been observed (CFI > .90, RMSEA < .08) when residual covariances between physiologically adjacent items (such as erectile induction and maintenance) are accounted for.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Global Sexual Functioning (GSF) Score — Sexual History Form (SHF)
• Original Authors: Laura Creti, Catherine S. Fichten, Rhonda Amsel, William Brender, Leslie R. Schover, Dennis Kalogeropoulos, and Eva Libman (1987, 1988, 1998); based on the parent instrument by Joseph K. Nowinski and Joseph LoPiccolo (1979).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital questionnaire.
• Item Count: 46 total items on the comprehensive SHF; 12 sex-specific items used to derive the GSF summary score.
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 minutes for the full 46-item SHF; approximately 3 to 5 minutes for the 12 GSF scoring items.
• Target Population: Adult males and females across the lifespan (heterosexual or sexual-minority couples/individuals, clinical, surgical, and healthy cohorts).
• Response Options: Multiple-choice formats varying per item (ranging from 5 to 9 ordinal categories).
• Mathematical Scoring Protocol:
  1. Proportional Transformation: Each of the 12 selected items is converted into a proportion of its maximum possible scale value by dividing the participant’s endorsed response number by the item’s designated divisor:
     
     $$\text{Proportion} = \frac{\text{Item Response Number}}{\text{Item Divisor}}$$
  2. Handling Conditional Missing Data: For items marked with an asterisk (*; Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 37), response option 6 represents “have never tried to.” When a respondent endorses option 6, this item is treated as missing and excluded from both the numerator and denominator.
  3. Aggregation and Averaging: The transformed proportions from valid items are summed and then divided by the total number of valid (non-missing) items completed (typically 12, or fewer if option 6 was endorsed on asterisked items):
     
     $$\text{GSF Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{k} \text{Proportion}_i}{k}$$
     
     where $k$ is the number of valid items answered.
  4. Score Range and Directionality: The final GSF score ranges continuously from greater than 0 to less than 1 ($0 < \text{GSF} < 1$). Lower scores indicate superior sexual functioning, while higher scores indicate greater sexual dysfunction.

Table: Item Selection and Divisors for Scoring

*Note: For items designated with an asterisk (*), a response of 6 (“have never tried to”) is treated as missing; the denominator is reduced accordingly.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Original Instrument Development: The Sexual History Form was initially introduced by Joseph K. Nowinski and Joseph LoPiccolo in 1979. Expanded 28-item and 46-item revisions were formulated by Leslie R. Schover and colleagues in 1982 and 1988.
• GSF Scoring Metric Inception: The Global Sexual Functioning scoring protocol was established in 1987 (Creti et al., 1987), clinically cross-validated in 1988 (Creti et al., 1988), and compiled in the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (Creti et al., 1998).
• Permissions and Academic Use: The GSF scoring system and the 46-item Sexual History Form are published in academic literature and clinical handbooks for research, educational, and clinical applications without commercial royalty fees. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the scoring algorithm with appropriate citation of the original authors. For commercial deployment, institutional redistribution, or integration into proprietary electronic medical systems, permission should be requested from the corresponding author (Dr. Laura Creti, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal) or the respective copyright holders.
• Available Translations: The instrument has been translated and psychometrically studied in French (Formulaire d’Histoire Sexuelle) and Spanish (Ávila Escribano et al., 2004).

References

• Ávila Escribano, J. J., Pérez Madruga, A., Olazábal Ulacia, J. C., & López Fidalgo, J. (2004). Disfunciones sexuales en el alcoholismo. Adicciones, 16(4), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.399
• Bergeron, S., Binik, Y. M., Khalifé, S., Pagidas, A., Glazer, H. I., Meana, M., & Amsel, R. (2001). A randomized comparison of group cognitive-behavioral therapy, surface electromyographic biofeedback, and vestibulectomy in the treatment of dyspareunia resulting from vulvar vestibulitis. Pain, 91(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00449-8
• Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
• Brown, R., Balousek, S., Mundt, M., & Fleming, M. (2005). Methadone maintenance and male sexual dysfunction. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 24(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1300/J069v24n02_08
• Creti, L., Fichten, C. S., Amsel, R., Brender, W., Schover, L. R., Kalogeropoulos, D., & Libman, E. (1998). Global sexual functioning: A single summary score for Nowinski and LoPiccolo’s Sexual History Form (SHF). In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 261–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Creti, L., Fichten, C. S., Libman, E., Amsel, R., & Brender, W. (1988). Female sexual functioning: A global score for Nowinski and LoPiccolo’s Sexual History Form. Canadian Psychology, 29(2a), Abstract 164.
• Creti, L., Fichten, C. S., Libman, E., Kalogeropoulos, D., & Brender, W. (1987, November). A global score for the “Sexual History Form” and its effectiveness. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA.
• Creti, L., & Libman, E. (1989). Cognitions and sexual expression in the aging. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 15(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926238908403814
• Desrosiers, M., Bergeron, S., Meana, M., Leclerc, B., Binik, Y. M., & Khalifé, S. (2008). Psychosexual characteristics of vestibulodynia couples: Partner solicitousness and hostility are associated with pain. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(2), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00705.x
• Kalogeropoulos, D. (1991). Vasoactive intracavernous pharmacotherapy for erectile dysfunction: Its effects on sexual, interpersonal, and psychological functioning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy: Active treatment of sexual dysfunctions. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
• Kaplan, H. S. (1979). Disorders of sexual desire and other new concepts and techniques in sex therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
• Libman, E., Fichten, C. S., Creti, L., Weinstein, N., Amsel, R., & Brender, W. (1989). Transurethral prostatectomy: Differential effects of age category and presurgery sexual functioning on postprostatectomy sexual adjustment. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(5), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00844880
• Libman, E., Fichten, C. S., Rothenberg, P., Creti, L., Weinstein, N., Amsel, R., & Brender, W. (1991). Prostatectomy and inguinal hernia repair: A comparison of the sexual consequences. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239108404329
• Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1970). Human sexual inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• Meana, M., & Nunnink, S. E. (2006). Gender differences in the content of cognitive distraction during sex. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552299
• Nowinski, J. K., & LoPiccolo, J. (1979). Assessing sexual behaviors in couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 5(3), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926237908403733
• Petersen, R. W., Ung, K., Holland, C., & Quinlivan, J. A. (2005). The impact of molar pregnancy on psychological symptomatology, sexual function, and quality of life. Gynecologic Oncology, 97(2), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.02.004
• Reissing, E. D., Binik, Y. M., Khalifé, S., Cohen, D., & Amsel, R. (2003). Etiological correlates of vaginismus: Sexual and physical abuse, sexual knowledge, sexual self-schema, and relationship adjustment. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/713847095
• Rogers, R. G., Coates, K. W., Kammerer-Doak, D., Khalsa, S., & Qualls, C. (2003). A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). International Urogynecology Journal, 14(3), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1063-2
• Rogers, R. G., Kammerer-Doak, D., Villarreal, A., Coates, K., & Qualls, C. (2001). A new instrument to measure sexual function in women with urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 184(4), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.111100
• Schover, L. R., Friedman, J. M., Weiler, S. J., Heiman, J. R., & LoPiccolo, J. (1982). Multiaxial problem-oriented system for sexual dysfunctions: An alternative to DSM-III. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39(5), 614–619. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290050078014
• Schover, L. R., & Jensen, S. B. (1988). Sexuality and chronic illness: A comprehensive approach. New York: Guilford Press.
• Weber, A. M., Walters, M. D., Schover, L. R., Church, J. M., & Piedmonte, M. R. (1999). Functional outcomes and satisfaction after abdominal hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181(3), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70487-1

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)