The Female Sexual Function Index: Transculturally Adaptation and Psychometric Validation in Spanish Women
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Translation and Cultural Adaptation
2.2. Participants and Procedure
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Participant Characteristics
2.3.2. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
2.3.3. Female Sexual Function Index
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Participants Characteristics
3.2. Cultural Adaptation
3.3. Reliability
3.4. Validity
3.5. Responsiveness
3.6. Feasibility
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Defining Sexual Health: Report of a Technical Consultation on Sexual Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, R.C.; Taylor, J.F.; Leiblum, S.R.; Bachmann, G.A. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women: Results of a survey study of 329 women in an outpatient gynecological clinic. J. Sex. Marital Ther. 1993, 19, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCabe, M.P.; Sharlip, I.D.; Lewis, R.; Atalla, E.; Balon, R.; Fisher, A.D.; Laumann, E.; Lee, S.W.; Segraves, R.T. Incidence and prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women and men: A consensus statement from the Fourth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine 2015. J. Sex. Med. 2016, 13, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCabe, M.P.; Sharlip, I.D.; Lewis, R.; Atalla, E.; Balon, R.; Fisher, A.D.; Laumann, E.; Lee, S.W.; Segraves, R.T. Definitions of sexual dysfunctions in women and men: A consensus statement from the Fourth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine 2015. J. Sex. Med. 2016, 13, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiorino, M.I.; Bellastella, G.; Giugliano, D.; Esposito, K. From inflammation to sexual dysfunctions: A journey through diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2018, 41, 1249–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achtari, C.; Dwyer, P.L. Sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005, 19, 993–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laumann, E.O.; Paik, A.; Rosen, R.C. Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. JAMA 1999, 281, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bortolami, A.; Vanti, C.; Banchelli, F.; Guccione, A.A.; Pillastrini, P. Relationship between female pelvic floor dysfunction and sexual dysfunction: An observational study. J. Sex. Med. 2015, 12, 1233–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handa, V.L.; Harvey, L.; Cundiff, G.W.; Siddique, S.A.; Kjerulff, K.H. Sexual function among women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004, 191, 751–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barber, M.D.; Visco, A.G.; Wyman, J.F.; Fantl, J.A.; Bump, R.C. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Sexual function in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 99, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Lukacz, E.S.; Whitcomb, E.L.; Lawrence, J.M.; Nager, C.W.; Contreras, R.; Luber, K.M. Are sexual activity and satisfaction affected by pelvic floor disorders? Analysis of a community-Based survey. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007, 197, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balzarro, M.; Rubilotta, E.; Mancini, V.; Trabacchin, N.; Oppezzi, L.; Li Marzi, V.; Fusco, F.; Serati, M. Impact of Overactive Bladder-Wet Syndrome on Female Sexual Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sex. Med. Rev. 2019, 7, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Handa, V.L.; Cundiff, G.; Chang, H.H.; Helzlsouer, K.J. Female sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 111, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barber, M.D.; Walters, M.D.; Bump, R.C. Short forms of two condition-Specific quality-Of-Life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Obstet. Gynecol. 2005, 193, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sánchez-Sánchez, B.; Torres-Lacomba, M.; Yuste-Sánchez, M.J.; Navarro-Brazález, B.; Pacheco-da-Costa, S.; Gutiérrez-Ortega, C. Cultural adaptation and validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory short form (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form (PFIQ-7) Spanish versions. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 170, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fakhri, A.; Pakpour, A.H.; Burri, A.; Morshedi, H.; Zeidi, I.M. The Female Sexual Function Index: Translation and validation of an Iranian version. J. Sex. Med. 2012, 9, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, C.; Brown, J.; Heiman, S.; Leiblum, C.; Meston, R.; Shabsigh, D.; Ferguson, R.; D’Agostino, R. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-Report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J. Sex. Marital Ther. 2000, 26, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryding, E.L.; Blom, C. Validation of the Swedish version of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J. Sex. Med. 2015, 12, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Li, C.; Jin, L.; Fan, Y.; Wang, D. Development and validation of Chinese version of Female Sexual Function Index in a Chinese population—A pilot study. J. Sex. Med. 2011, 8, 1101–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takahashi, M.; Inokuchi, T.; Watanabe, C.; Saito, T.; Kai, I. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): Development of a Japanese Version. J. Sex. Med. 2011, 8, 2246–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anis, T.H.; Gheit, S.A.; Saied, H.S.; Al_kherbash, S.A. Arabic translation of Female Sexual Function Index and validation in an Egyptian population. J. Sex. Med. 2011, 8, 3370–3378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sand, M.; Rosen, R.; Meston, C.; Brotto, L.A. The female sexual function index (FSFI): A potential “gold standard” measure for assessing therapeutically-Induced change in female sexual function. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 92, S129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blümel, J.E.; Binfa, L.; Cataldo, P.; Carrasco, A.; Izaguirre, H.; Sarr, S. Índice de función sexual femenina: Un test para evaluar la sexualidad de la mujer. Revista Chilena de Obstetricia y Ginecologa 2004, 69, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vallejo-Medina, P.; Prez-Durn, C.; Saavedra-Roa, A. Translation, Adaptation, and Preliminary Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index into Spanish (Colombia). Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017, 47, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wild, D.; Grove, A.; Martin, M.; Eremenco, S.; McElroy, S.; Verjee-Lorenz, A.; Erikson, P. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-Reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005, 8, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DSM-5 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Windt, D.A.; Danille, A.W.M.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mokkink, L.B.; Terwee, C.B.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Stratford, P.W.; Knol, D.L.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-Related patient-Reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2010, 63, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rothman, M.; Burke, L.; Erickson, P.; Leidy, N.K.; Patrick, D.L.; Petrie, C.D. Use of existing patient-Reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report. Value Health 2009, 12, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Crosby, R.D.; Kolotkin, R.L.; Williams, G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-Related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003, 56, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terwee, C.; Dekker, F.; Wiersinga, W.; Prummel, M.; Bossuyt, P. On assessing responsiveness of health-Related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual. Life Res. 2003, 12, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, B.S.; Lacomba, M.T.; Brazález, B.N.; Téllez, E.C.; Da Costa, S.P.; Ortega, C.G. Responsiveness of the Spanish Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaires Short Forms (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7) in women with pelvic floor disorders. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015, 190, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opperman, E.A.; Benson, L.E.; Milhausen, R.R. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Female Sexual Function Index. J. Sex. Res. 2013, 50, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vallejo-Medina, P.; Gómez-Lugo, M.; Marchal-Bertrand, L.; Saavedra-Roa, A.; Soler, F.; Morales, A. Developing guidelines for adapting questionnaires into the same language in another culture. Terapia Psicológica 2017, 35, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valderas, J.M.; Ferrer, M.; Alonso, J. Instrumentos de medida de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y de otros resultados percibidos por los pacientes. Medicina Clínica 2005, 125, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brotto, L.A.; Chik, H.M.; Ryder, A.G.; Gorzalka, B.B.; Seal, B.N. Acculturation and sexual function in Asian women. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2005, 34, 613–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Husted, J.A.; Cook, R.J.; Farewell, V.T.; Gladman, D.D. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2000, 53, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barber, M.D.; Walters, M.D.; Cundiff, G.W. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 194, 1492–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidi, H.; Abdullah, N.; Puteh, S.E.W.; Midin, M. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): Validation of the Malay Version. J. Sex. Med. 2007, 4, 1642–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.; Chang, T.; Chen, K.; Lin, H. Developing and Validating a Taiwan Version of the Female Sexual Function Index for Pregnant Women. J. Sex. Med. 2009, 6, 1609–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
FSD Group (N = 167) | Control Group (N = 156) | |
---|---|---|
Age (years, X (SD)) | 48 (8) | 40 (11) |
Education level (n (%)) | ||
Primary School | 43 (25.7%) | 22 (14.1%) |
High School | 45 (26.9%) | 40 (25.6%) |
College or University | 79 (47.3%) | 94 (60.2%) |
Marital Status (n (%)) | ||
Married | 116 (69.4%) | 86 (55.1%) |
In couple | 48 (28.7%) | 57 (36.5%) |
Single | 3 (1.7%) | 13 (8.3%) |
Occupational status (n (%)) | ||
Housewife | 30 (17.9%) | 13 (8.3%) |
Employee | 123 (73.6%) | 120 (76.9%) |
Unemployed | 11 (6.5%) | 7 (4.4%) |
Student | 3 (1.7%) | 16 (10.2%) |
Annual family income (€) (n (%)) | ||
<12.000 € | 16 (9.5%) | 11 (7 %) |
12.000–24.000 € | 35 (20.9%) | 34 (21.7%) |
>24.000–36.000 € | 57 (34.1%) | 44 (28.2%) |
>36.000–48.000 € | 16 (9.5%) | 23 (14.7%) |
>48.000 € | 14 (8.3%) | 3 (1.7%) |
Prefer don’t say it | 29 (17.4%) | 40 (25.6%) |
Vaginal delivery (n (%)) | ||
Nulliparous | 41 (24.5%) | 62 (39.7%) |
1 | 57 (34.1%) | 46 (29.4%) |
2 | 58 (34.7%) | 35 (22.4%) |
3 | 6 (3.5%) | 12 (7.6%) |
4 or more | 5 (2.9%) | 1 (0.6%) |
Menopause (n (%)) | ||
Yes | 58 (34.7%) | 35 (22.4%) |
No | 109 (65.2%) | 121 (77.6%) |
ICC | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|
Desire | 0.943 | 0.872–0.975 |
Arousal | 0.907 | 0.792–0.959 |
Lubrication | 0.939 | 0.864–0.973 |
Orgasm | 0.916 | 0.811–0.963 |
Satisfaction | 0.931 | 0.845–0.969 |
Pain | 0.930 | 0.844–0.969 |
Total FSFI | 0.960 | 0.910–0.982 |
FSD Group (N = 167) | Control Group (N = 156) | Total Group (N = 323) | |
---|---|---|---|
Desire | 0.752 | 0.749 | 0.760 |
Arousal | 0.723 | 0.749 | 0.745 |
Lubrication | 0.739 | 0.763 | 0.756 |
Orgasm | 0.741 | 0.747 | 0.753 |
Satisfaction | 0.739 | 0.739 | 0.753 |
Pain | 0.753 | 0.762 | 0.765 |
Total FSFI | 0.793 | 0.837 | 0.850 |
Factors | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | |
1. Desire: frequency | 0.302 | 0.238 | 0.177 | 0.082 | 0.142 | 0.824 |
2. Desire: level | 0.301 | 0.177 | 0.186 | 0.163 | 0.098 | 0.833 |
3. Arousal: frequency | 0.707 | 0.173 | 0.209 | 0.084 | 0.239 | 0.419 |
4. Arousal: level | 0.673 | 0.180 | 0.311 | 0.174 | 0.179 | 0.431 |
5. Arousal: confidence | 0.717 | 0.200 | 0.162 | 0.211 | 0.345 | 0.239 |
6. Arousal: satisfaction | 0.723 | 0.181 | 0.313 | 0.124 | 0.379 | 0.181 |
7. Lubrication: frequency | 0.519 | 0.701 | 0.076 | 0.135 | −0.019 | 0.113 |
8. Lubrication: difficulty | 0.023 | 0.857 | 0.112 | 0.163 | 0.144 | 0.223 |
9. Lubrication: frequency of maintaining | 0.359 | 0.767 | 0.196 | 0.201 | 0.030 | 0.081 |
10. Lubrication: difficulty in maintaining | 0.028 | 0.846 | 0.192 | 0.114 | 0.256 | 0.139 |
11. Orgasm: frequency | 0.460 | 0.045 | 0.404 | −0.055 | 0.633 | 0.051 |
12. Orgasm: difficulty | 0.194 | 0.170 | 0.185 | 0.146 | 0.822 | 0.188 |
13. Orgasm: satisfaction | 0.308 | 0.176 | 0.384 | 0.040 | 0.702 | 0.076 |
14. Satisfaction: with closeness with partner | 0.195 | 0.221 | 0.831 | 0.114 | 0.136 | 0.134 |
15. Satisfaction: with sexual relationship | 0.144 | 0.111 | 0.850 | 0.123 | 0.263 | 0.143 |
16. Satisfaction: with overall sex life | 0.334 | 0.193 | 0.676 | 0.008 | 0.344 | 0.202 |
17. Pain: frequency during vaginal penetration | 0.041 | 0.249 | 0.020 | 0.635 | 0.278 | 0.344 |
18. Pain: frequency following vaginal penetration | 0.123 | 0.191 | 0.087 | 0.948 | 0.097 | 0.154 |
19. Pain: level during or following vaginal penetration | 0.143 | 0.095 | 0.103 | 0.886 | −0.083 | −0.058 |
Eigenvalue | 9.7 | 2.23 | 1.45 | 1.30 | 0.87 | 0.76 |
% of explained variance | 47.73% | 11.74% | 7.65% | 6.82% | 4.60% | 4.03% |
TOTAL GROUP | Desire | Arousal | Lubrication | Orgasm | Satisfaction | Pain | Total FSFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Desire | 1 | ||||||
Arousal | 0.676 (**) | 1 | |||||
Lubrication | 0.455 (**) | 0.560 (**) | 1 | ||||
Orgasm | 0.439 (**) | 0.685 (**) | 0.427 (**) | 1 | |||
Satisfaction | 0.464 (**) | 0.632 (**) | 0.467 (**) | 0.694 (**) | 1 | ||
Pain | 0.351 (**) | 0.381 (**) | 0.462 (**) | 0.332 (**) | 0.363 (**) | 1 | |
Total FSFI | 0.730 (**) | 0.853 (**) | 0.742 (**) | 0.780 (**) | 0.792 (**) | 0.653 (**) | 1 |
FSD GROUP | Desire | Arousal | Lubrication | Orgasm | Satisfaction | Pain | Total FSFI |
Desire | 1 | ||||||
Arousal | 0.614 (**) | 1 | |||||
Lubrication | 0.364 (**) | 0.494 (**) | 1 | ||||
Orgasm | 0.275 (**) | 0.638 (**) | 0.307 (**) | 1 | |||
Satisfaction | 0.370 (**) | 0.619 (**) | 0.352 (**) | 0.656 (**) | 1 | ||
Pain | 0.210 (**) | 0.273 (**) | 0.439 (**) | 0.180 (*) | 0.214 (**) | 1 | |
Total FSFI | 0.640 (**) | 0.839 (**) | 0.705 (**) | 0.712 (**) | 0.744 (**) | 0.591 (**) | 1 |
CONTROL GROUP | Desire | Arousal | Lubrication | Orgasm | Satisfaction | Pain | Total FSFI |
Desire | 1 | ||||||
Arousal | 0.644 (**) | 1 | |||||
Lubrication | 0.358 (**) | 0.459 (**) | 1 | ||||
Orgasm | 0.466 (**) | 0.616 (**) | 0.389 (**) | 1 | |||
Satisfaction | 0.419 (**) | 0.519 (**) | 0.498 (**) | 0.655 (**) | 1 | ||
Pain | 0.386 (**) | 0.376 (**) | 0.259 (**) | 0.418 (**) | 0.483 (**) | 1 | |
Total FSFI | 0.731 (**) | 0.798 (**) | 0.657 (**) | 0.792 (**) | 0.814 (**) | 0.650 (**) | 1 |
FSD Group (N = 167) X (SD) | Control Group (N = 156) X (SD) | Mean Difference | 95% CI | T Value | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Desire | 3.3 (1.12) | 4.2 (0.95) | 0.899 | 0.672–1.126 | 7.797 | <0.001 |
Arousal | 4.2 (1.26) | 5.1 (0.80) | 0.890 | 0.661–1.119 | 7.642 | <0.001 |
Lubrication | 4.5 (1.33) | 5.4 (0.82) | 0.925 | 0.685–1.166 | 7.566 | <0.001 |
Orgasm | 4.4 (1.26) | 5.3 (0.85) | 0.891 | 0.657–1.125 | 7.499 | <0.001 |
Satisfaction | 4.5 (1.18) | 5.2 (0.95) | 0.721 | 0.487–0.955 | 6.063 | <0.001 |
Pain | 4.8 (1.48) | 5.6 (0.88) | 0.792 | 0.527–1.057 | 5.880 | <0.001 |
Total FSFI | 25.7 (5.49) | 30.9 (3.99) | 5.128 | 4.087–6.170 | 9.691 | <0.001 |
Age (years, X (SD)) | 50 (6) |
Education level (n (%)) | |
Primary School | 10 (10.8%) |
High School | 24 (26.0%) |
College or University | 58 (63.0%) |
Marital Status (n (%)) | |
Married | 49 (53.3%) |
In couple | 43 (46.7%) |
Single | - |
Occupational status (n (%)) | |
Housewife | 11 (11.9%) |
Employee | 76 (82.6%) |
Unemployed | 5 (5.4%) |
Student | - |
Annual family income (€) (n (%)) | |
<12.000 € | 4 (4.3%) |
12.000–24.000 € | 29 (31.5%) |
>24.000–36.000 € | 34 (36.9%) |
>36.000–48.000 € | 15 (16.3%) |
>48.000 € | 4 (4.3%) |
Prefer don’t say it | 6 (6.5%) |
Vaginal delivery (n (%)) | |
Nulliparous | 2 (2.2%) |
1 | 63 (68.5%) |
2 | 27 (29.3%) |
3 | - |
4 or more | - |
Menopause (n (%)) | |
Yes | 33 (64.1%) |
No | 59 (35.9%) |
N = 92 | Pretreatment X (SD) Score | Posttreatment X (SD) Score | Mean Change in Score (SD) | 95% CI | T Value | p Value | Effect Size (ES) | Standardized Response Mean (SRM) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Desire | 3.1 (1.01) | 3.8 (0.99) | 0.7 (1.21) | 0.492–0.995 | 5.873 | <0.001 | 0.69 | 0.58 |
Arousal | 3.4 (1.31) | 4.7 (1.09) | 1.3 (1.58) | 0.977–1.631 | 7.914 | <0.001 | 0.99 | 0.82 |
Lubrication | 3.4 (1.63) | 4.9 (1.25) | 1.5 (1.76) | 1.149–1.882 | 8.221 | <0.001 | 0.92 | 0.85 |
Orgasm | 3.5 (1.65) | 5.0 (1.17) | 1.5 (1.79) | 1.197–1.941 | 8.378 | <0.001 | 0.91 | 0.84 |
Satisfaction | 3.8 (1.33) | 5.0 (1.02) | 1.2 (1.46) | 0.952–1.560 | 8.212 | <0.001 | 0.90 | 0.82 |
Pain | 3.4 (1.81) | 5.3 (1.01) | 1.9 (1.89) | 1.550–2.336 | 9.821 | <0.001 | 1.05 | 1.01 |
Total FSFI | 20.7 (6.71) | 29.0 (5.26) | 8.3 (7.45) | 6.788–9.878 | 10.715 | <0.001 | 1.24 | 1.11 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sánchez-Sánchez, B.; Navarro-Brazález, B.; Arranz-Martín, B.; Sánchez-Méndez, Ó.; de la Rosa-Díaz, I.; Torres-Lacomba, M. The Female Sexual Function Index: Transculturally Adaptation and Psychometric Validation in Spanish Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030994
Sánchez-Sánchez B, Navarro-Brazález B, Arranz-Martín B, Sánchez-Méndez Ó, de la Rosa-Díaz I, Torres-Lacomba M. The Female Sexual Function Index: Transculturally Adaptation and Psychometric Validation in Spanish Women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3):994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030994
Chicago/Turabian StyleSánchez-Sánchez, Beatriz, Beatriz Navarro-Brazález, Beatriz Arranz-Martín, Óscar Sánchez-Méndez, Irene de la Rosa-Díaz, and María Torres-Lacomba. 2020. "The Female Sexual Function Index: Transculturally Adaptation and Psychometric Validation in Spanish Women" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 3: 994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030994