Next Article in Journal
Adolescent Distress: Is There a Vaccine? Social and Cultural Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Selected Sociodemographic and Cultural Factors on the Age of Sexual Initiation of Students from Polish Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Aspects of Health—Developing a Conceptual Framework
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding Serial Mediators of Problematic Pornography Use in Pakistani Men and Women
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20031820
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Measurement Invariance across Sexual Orientation for Measures of Sexual Attitudes

by
Laura Elvira Muñoz-García
1,
Carmen Gómez-Berrocal
1,
Alejandro Guillén-Riquelme
2 and
Juan Carlos Sierra
1,*
1
Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), 46002 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 1820; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20031820
Submission received: 22 December 2022 / Revised: 16 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 19 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sexual Functioning, Sexual Satisfaction and Health)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the growing interest in the study of sexual attitudes across sexual orientation, few studies have tested whether the instruments used to measure them are invariant. This study examined measurement invariance (configural, weak, strong, and strict) across sexual orientation in three different sexual attitude scales: the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) to assess erotophilia, the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy (HISF) to assess attitudes toward sexual fantasies, and the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory (NATMI) to assess negative attitudes toward masturbation. A total of 2293 Spanish adult men and women with different sexual orientations (i.e., heterosexual, bisexual, and gay) participated in the study. The results indicated strict invariance for HISF across sexual orientation and only weak invariance for SOS and NATMI. Differential item functioning was also found in two items of the NATMI scale. Evidence of validity was provided for the three scales that were studied.

1. Introduction

In general, an attitude is a psychological state that precedes and directs behavior [1]. Sexual attitudes are evaluative beliefs that determine favorable or unfavorable responses to sexual stimuli and influence both sexual functioning and the way of living or expressing sexuality [2,3]. Depending on the object or topic being addressed, sexual attitudes can be general or specific. In this sense, while erotophilia implies an attitude toward sexuality in general, specific sexual attitudes refer to behaviors or specific psychological processes related to sexuality (e.g., attitudes toward sexual fantasies or masturbation). Both erotophilia and attitudes toward specific sexual behaviors are associated with sexual health indicators such as sexual victimization [4,5,6], sexual aggression [7,8], sexual risk behaviors [9,10], the subjective experience of orgasm [11,12], and sexual functioning [3,13,14]. This relationship pattern indicates that sex-positive attitudes are associated with greater desire toward a sexual partner [15,16,17]; greater subjective and objective sexual arousal [18,19]; and greater facility in obtaining orgasm [3], along with greater intensity in its subjective experience [11,20] and greater satisfaction with it [21] as well as greater sexual satisfaction in general [15,22].
The erotophobia–erotophilia construct is defined, according to Fisher et al. [23], as the learned disposition to respond to sexual stimuli on a bipolar dimension of affect and evaluation from negative (erotophobia) to positive (erotophilia) poles. Based on this conceptualization, the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) [23] makes it possible to classify people as erotophilic or erotophobic. Erotophilic individuals place their responses in the scores closer to the positive pole of the evaluative continuum, i.e., they value sex as pleasurable and seek sexual activity, whereas the responses of erotophobic individuals are placed in scores closer to the negative pole, i.e., they value sexual activity negatively and tend to avoid it [23]. Erotophilia is considered an indicator of sexual health [18,24,25], as it is related to overall good sexual functioning [13,26,27,28,29] and, specifically, with sexual desire [16,30,31,32], subjective and objective sexual arousal [18,19,33,34], the propensity for sexual arousal [35,36], the subjective experience of orgasm [11], and sexual satisfaction [15,22,37]. Based on the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) [23], Vallejo-Medina et al. [28] developed a brief Spanish version composed of six items grouped into a single factor called erotophilia. In this scale, higher scores indicate greater erotophilia. The SOS was selected because of its adequate psychometric properties, as it is a measure that is invariant by gender, age, having a partner or not, and level of education. Moreover, its internal consistency reliability is above 0.75, and it has presented adequate evidence of validity [18].
Sexual fantasies refer to any mental image that is sexually arousing or erotic for the individual [38]. A positive attitude toward sexual fantasies is considered an indicator of sexual health [39], as it is directly related to sexual functioning [3,27], the subjective experience of orgasm [12], sexual satisfaction [40], sexual assertiveness [41] and positive attitudes toward masturbation [42]. The Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy (HISF) [43] was developed to assess attitudes toward sexual fantasies. The scale was adapted to Spanish by Desvarieux et al. [44] and consists of a single factor where high scores show a favorable attitude toward sexual fantasies. This instrument was used because of its adequate psychometric properties. It has been shown to be invariant by gender, age, and educational level, with an internal consistency reliability of 0.94. It has also shown the ability to differentiate between individuals with and without difficulties in sexual functioning and has shown expected correlations with related constructs (erotophilia, sexual assertiveness, sexual desire, and sexual functioning) [3,14].
Specific sexual attitudes that consider masturbation as an object of evaluation have also been considered. Masturbation has traditionally been stigmatized [42,45]; however, it is a pleasurable sexual experience, and in recent decades there is evidence that masturbation is an indicator of sexual development and a means to achieve sexual health [46]. In this sense, a favorable attitude toward masturbation has been related to erotophilia and positive attitudes toward sexual fantasies [47], while a negative attitude is directly associated with sexual guilt [48,49], lower solitary sexual desire, lower satisfaction with orgasm [21], and worse sexual functioning [42]. One of the existing scales to measure attitudes toward masturbation is the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory (NATMI) [50,51], which Cervilla et al. [42] adapted to the Spanish population, proposing a brief one-factor version with high reliability (ordinal alpha of 0.95). This measure was used because of its adequate psychometric properties since this version allows discrimination between people with different levels of sexual desire and arousal, facility for reaching orgasm, and satisfaction associated with orgasm [42]. Higher scores on this scale indicate negative attitudes toward masturbation.
Studies on the sexual attitudes of LGB people are scarce when compared to similar research on heterosexual people. Overall, the body of collected evidence indicates differences in sexual attitudes across sexual orientation. More specifically, bisexual people are more erotophilic than heterosexual people [52,53] and show greater sexual openness [54]. Likewise, in comparison with heterosexual people, non-heterosexual people present a more positive attitudes toward sexuality [52], and bisexual and lesbian women report more permissive sexual attitudes and intentions than heterosexual women [32,55,56]. From these results, we can derive the importance of measuring invariance across sexual orientation for measures of sexual attitudes that are frequently used.
Measurement invariance testing is used to evaluate the assumption that scales operate similarly across groups [57,58], which constitutes one of the current guidelines of the International Test Commission [58]. Given that the description and explanation of how the dimensions that conform sexuality work involves an analysis through groups and collectives defined, among other criteria, by gender and sexual orientation, measurement invariance testing acquires an unquestionable importance in the field of human sexuality. In this sense, the production in recent years reflects the interest in examining the factorial invariance of scales that assess different dimensions of sexuality [12,18,25,42,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement invariance across sexual orientation of the Spanish versions of three scales that assess sexual attitudes: the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) [23] by Vallejo-Medina et al. [28], the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy [43] by Desvarieux et al. [44], and the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory (NATMI) [51] by Cervilla et al. [42].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 2293 Spanish adults (1093 men and 1200 women) aged 18 to 77 years (M = 35.34; SD = 13.36). The participants were classified according to their scores on the Kinsey Scale into heterosexual people (scores = 1 and 2; n = 800), bisexual people (scores = 3, 4, and 5; n = 694), and gay people (scores = 6 and 7; n = 799). The inclusion criteria included being cisgender (Table 1).

2.2. Instruments

The Sociodemographic and Sexual History Questionnaire collects information on gender, age, nationality, education level, partner relationships, sexual activity, and masturbation.
The Kinsey Scale [68] identifies the type of sexual relationship practiced through an item with seven response options ranging from 1 (exclusively heterosexual) to 7 (exclusively homosexual).
The reduced Spanish version of the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) [23] by Vallejo-Medina et al. [28] measures erotophilia and consists of six items (e.g., “I personally find that thinking about engaging in sexual intercourse is arousing” [“Me resulta excitante pensar en tener una relación sexual coital”]) that are answered on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher level of erotophilia. In this study, the internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.64.
The Spanish version of the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy (HISF) [43] by Desverieux et al. [44] consists of ten items (e.g., “I think sexual fantasies are healthy” [“Considero saludables las fantasías sexuales”]) with a five-point Likert response scale from 0 (never) to 4 (all of the time). A higher score indicates a more favorable attitude toward sexual fantasies. In this study, the internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.87.
The Spanish version of the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory (NATMI) [51] by Cervilla et al. [42] consists of ten items (e.g., “I feel guilty about masturbating” [“Cuando me masturbo me siento culpable”]) with a five-point Likert response scale from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (extremely true for me). High scores indicate negative attitudes toward masturbation. In this study, the internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.82.

2.3. Procedure

Participants answered the survey online, which is a common procedure to assess sexual attitudes [3,42]. The online survey was distributed using virtual platforms (Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and e-mail). Previous studies have confirmed that there are no differences compared to the traditional paper and pencil method [69,70].
Participants accepted an informed consent form that included the objective and purpose of the study. Anonymity, data protection, and confidentiality were guaranteed. Automatic responses were avoided by answering a random arithmetic question. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of Granada Human Research Ethics Committee (2594/CEIH/2022).

2.4. Data Analysis

Missing data were imputed through an algorithm for non-parametric distributions by creating a random forest model for each variable. Overall confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and an evaluation of measurement invariance via multiple groups (heterosexual, bisexual, and gay) were performed. CFAs were conducted in R® (version 3.6.3) [71] with the Rstudio® (version 1.2.5042) [72] interface. The following packages were used: missForest (version 1.4) [73] for missing data imputation and lavaan for the measurement of invariance [74]. The robust weighted least-squares estimation method with a chi-square fit with respect to the mean (WLSM) was followed. A fit was considered good if the root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) values were less than 0.06 and the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) values were greater than 0.90. The factorial invariance was progressively analyzed at four levels: configural, weak, strong, and strict. To accept the equivalence of the models at the different levels, the recommendations on the CFI as the main invariance adjustment were followed. A change in CFI equal to or greater than 0.01 allows adopting the less constrained model and rejecting the more restrictive one [75,76].
For the differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, the logistic regression procedure was used, applying three models (fitting the overall score, including the item, and total item interaction) in the group prediction. The models were progressively subtracted to determine if there were significant increases in the explained variance (Nagelkerke R2 ≥ 0.035). For items with DIF, the response categories were progressively grouped to analyze whether the DIF was constant across all response options. The lordif package [77] was used for the analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Item Analysis

An analysis of the medians, mean scores, and the standard deviations of the items was conducted to detect extreme scores [78,79].
Regarding the SOS, means ranged between 5.52 and 6.59 (theoretical range of 1 to 7). Standard deviations ranged from 0.92 to 1.96. This indicates that the subjects had a response pattern with high frequencies at the higher (erotophilic) end of the scale (Table 2).
In regard of the HISF, means ranged between 2.66 and 3.42 (theoretical range of 0 to 4). Standard deviations ranged from 0.72 to 1.19. This indicates that the subjects had a response pattern with high frequencies in the middle range of the scale (Table 2).
With respect to the NATMI, means ranged between 1.02 and 1.30 (theoretical range of 1 to 5). Standard deviations ranged from 0.14 to 0.75. This indicates that the subjects had a response pattern with high frequencies at the lower (positive attitudes toward masturbation) end of the scale (Table 2).

3.2. Overall Confirmatory Analysis

The results of the overall CFAs are reported in Table 3. Initial CFAs in the full sample indicated an acceptable model fit for the hypothesized factor unique to SOS, HISF, and NATMI.

3.3. Measurement Invariance across Sexual Orientation

The factorial structure of the SOS did not show strict invariance by sexual orientation. It stayed at the weak level (RMSEA = 0.045 [0.036, 0.054], CFI = 0.936) (Table 4).
The factorial structure of the HISF showed strict invariance by sexual orientation (RMSEA = 0.092 [0.088, 0.096], CFI = 0.904) (Table 4).
The factorial structure of the NATMI did not show strict invariance by sexual orientation. It stayed at the weak level (RMSEA = 0.021 [0.017, 0.026], CFI = 0.947) (Table 4).

3.4. Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

The NATMI scale presented uniform DIF in items 5 and 8. The values obtained in Mellenberg ranged between 0.029 and 0.080 for item 5 and between 0.038 and 0.080 for item 8. Therefore, in both cases the DIF occurred equally in all response categories. The differences in DIF according to trait level can be seen in Figure 1. The rest of the NATMI items, as well as the SOS and HISF items, did not present DIF problems (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Erotophilia and attitudes toward specific sexual behaviors (e.g., sexual fantasies and masturbation) are associated with indicators of sexual health [4,7,9,12] and with components of sexual functioning [16,18,22]. The few studies conducted with LGB population indicate that their sexual attitudes may differ from those reported by heterosexual individuals. The main objective of this study was to examine the measurement invariance by sexual orientation of the Spanish versions of three sexual attitude scales: the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) [28], the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy (HISF) [44], and the Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory (NATMI) [42].
The results of the measurement invariance analysis of the HISF confirmed that it is a scale that is invariant by sexual orientation. That is, the measure of positive attitude toward sexual fantasies provided by this instrument can be compared across sample groups defined according to their sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, bisexual, and gay) [80]. This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies that indicated that the content of sexual fantasies is very similar among heterosexual, bisexual, and gay individuals [38,81,82,83,84]. This is especially useful in the treatment of sexual dysfunctions since the acceptance of sexual fantasies and support for opening up about them with a partner are important tools in sex therapy, enhancing personal growth and intimacy in the relationship [85]. Moreover, the results of this study indicate that both SOS and NATMI only reached a weak level of invariance. Reaching a strong level of invariance implies that the mean differences in the construct capture all mean differences in the shared variance of the items. When the overall model fit is significantly worse in the strong invariance model compared to the weak invariance model, as occurred in these two scales, it is understood that at least one item differs in the compared groups [76]. Therefore, a DIF analysis of both scales was performed. In the case of the SOS scale, no differential functioning of any of its items was observed. The absence of invariance in this scale may be due to the presence of extreme mean scores [86] for heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people. Specifically, a distinct tendency toward erotophilia was observed for each of these groups.
In the case of the NATMI scale, the DIF analysis reported that two items (“I feel guilty about masturbating” [“Cuando me masturbo me siento culpable”] and “When I masturbate, I am disgusted with myself” [“Cuando me masturbo me doy asco”]) did not perform as well as the rest, which implies a significant difference between heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people in the information they report about the feeling of guilt associated with solitary masturbation. Historically, guilt has been found to be associated with this behavior [45,87] and preceded by a negative attitude toward masturbation [48]. This guilt has been rarely compared between gay and heterosexual people, finding worse attitudes toward masturbation and greater associated guilt in heterosexual people than in gay people [88]. In the case of this scale, extreme mean scores were also found in the responses of the groups. In heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people, a clear tendency toward a positive attitude toward masturbation was observed, which may have caused the absence of measurement invariance [86]. The presence of extreme mean scores could reveal that the three groups established by sexual orientation (i.e., heterosexual, bisexual, and gay) share a generalized cultural consent [89] on attitudes toward aspects of sexuality in general and toward masturbation in particular. However, this is not the case for the HISF scale, where a more central and less extreme distribution of the means on the response scale was observed.
Beyond the psychometric explanation, which offers a logical justification for the non-invariance of the SOS and NATMI scales, the results obtained in this study must have a background based on the nature of the functioning of attitudes [90]. Specifically, in the HISF scale, each of its items refers to the abstract term “sexual fantasies” (e.g., “I think sexual fantasies are healthy” [“Considero saludables las fantasías sexuales”]). These sexual thoughts can be experienced with a positive or negative affect [39,91]. The experience that a person has had with respect to an attitudinal object, such as sexual fantasies in this case, determines the attitudinal affective component linked to that object [92]. Therefore, the abstract concept “sexual fantasy” to which the items of the HISF scale allude, depending on the socialization that the person has had with respect to these sexual fantasies or thoughts, will determine their positioning on the response scale, and this positioning will surely follow a normal distribution, providing sufficient variability. However, unlike the HISF scale, the SOS and NATMI scales present items that refer to very specific sexual concepts and practices with clear positive or negative associated evaluative components (e.g., “Masturbation can be an exciting experience” [“La masturbación puede ser una experiencia excitante”], and “I feel guilty about masturbating” [“Cuando me masturbo me siento culpable”], respectively).
In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the validity of the measures provided by the SOS, HISF, and NATMI scales, despite the absence of strong invariance by sexual orientation in SOS and NATMI. Considering the validity indicators of these scales, both reached the levels of configural and weak invariance, so they maintain their factorial structures and constitute accurate assessment instruments.
The limitations of this study include the fact that the sample was collected incidentally through an online survey that was distributed through social media, which excludes the participation of people without access to social media. However, beyond these limitations, the obtained results are considered relevant from a research and clinical perspective, as they provide evidence of validity regarding instruments of relevance in both settings. In the future, when creating and validating assessment instruments, a diverse sample with respect to sexual orientation should be considered. Further research should also consider the possibility of reproducing the analyses carried out in this study with other existing scales related to sexual attitudes, such as the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) [93].

5. Conclusions

The results of this study support the strict invariance by sexual orientation of the HISF scale, which measures attitudes toward sexual fantasies, thus providing evidence of validity that allows comparisons of evaluations of this construct among heterosexual, bisexual, and gay people. Evidence of the validity and reliability of the SOS and NATMI scales is also provided, although strict invariance by sexual orientation was not found. Therefore, in the case of using them to make comparisons between sexual orientation groups, extreme caution should be applied.
The results of this study provide highly relevant information to the field of study of sexual attitudes in bisexual and gay people, showing that attitudes regarding erotophilia, sexual fantasies, and masturbation are rather similar to those of heterosexual people. On a more practical level, this study provides evidence of validity for the SOS, HISF, and NATMI questionnaires to be used in a clinical setting on LGB people. Analyzing these attitudes that are closely related to sexual health provides a more detailed understanding of the causes of certain LGB sexuality-related problems and acts as a guide to their potential solutions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.S. and C.G.-B.; methodology, L.E.M.-G.; software, L.E.M.-G. and A.G.-R.; formal analysis, L.E.M.-G. and A.G.-R.; data curation, L.E.M.-G. and A.G.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.E.M.-G.; writing—review and editing, L.E.M.-G., C.G.-B., A.G.-R. and J.C.S.; supervision, C.G.-B., A.G.-R. and J.C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee on Human Research of the University of Granada (2594/CEIH/2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes; Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 173–221. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pérez-González, S.P.; Moyano, N.; Sierra, J.C. La capacidad de ensoñación sexual: Su relación con la actitud hacia las fantasías sexuales y rasgos de personalidad. Cuad. Med. Psicosom. Psiquiatr. Enlace 2011, 99, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sierra, J.C.; Gómez-Carranza, J.; Álvarez-Muelas, A.; Cervilla, O. Association of Sexual Attitudes with Sexual Function: General vs. Specific Attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Crawford, J.N.; Leiting, K.A.; Yeater, E.A.; Verney, S.P.; Lenberg, K.L. Ethnicity and Sexual Attitudes Affect Women’s Judgments of Sexual Victimization Risk. Violence Against Women 2017, 23, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sierra, J.C.; Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Álvarez-Muelas, A.; Cervilla, O. The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Sexual Attitudes, Sexual Assertiveness, and Sexual Functioning in Men and Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yeater, E.A.; Witkiewitz, K.; López, G.; Ross, R.S.; Vitek, K.; Bryan, A. Latent Profile Analysis of Alcohol Consumption and Sexual Attitudes Among College Women: Associations with Sexual Victimization Risk. Violence Against Women 2018, 24, 1279–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bondü, R.; Birke, J.B. Aggression-Related Sexual Fantasies: Prevalence Rates, Sex Differences, and Links with Personality, Attitudes, and Behavior. J. Sex. Med 2021, 18, 1383–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Pedneault, C.I.; Nunes, K.L.; Hermann, C.A.; White, K. Evaluative Attitudes May Explain the Link Between Injunctive Norms and Sexual Aggression. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, 1933–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Confalonieri, E.; Cuccì, G.; Olivari, M.G.; Parise, M.; Borroni, E.; Villani, D. What Are You Sexting? Parental Practices, Sexting Attitudes and Behaviors among Italian Adolescents. BMC Psychol. 2020, 8, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saint-Eloi Cadely, H.; Finnegan, V.; Spears, E.C.; Kerpelman, J.L. Adolescents and Sexual Risk-Taking: The Interplay of Constraining Relationship Beliefs, Healthy Sex Attitudes, and Romantic Attachment Insecurity. J. Adolesc. 2020, 84, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Sierra, J.C. Factors Associated with Subjective Orgasm Experience in Heterosexual Relationships. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2020, 46, 314–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mangas, P.; Granados, R.; Cervilla, O.; Sierra, J.C. Validation of the Orgasm Rating Scale in Context of Sexual Relationships of Gay and Lesbian Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shayan, A.; Khodabandeloo, R.; Solatani, F.; Esfandeh, K.; Masoumi, S.Z.; Mohammadi, Y.; Dargahi, S.; Esmaili, M. The Relationship between Attitudes and Sexual Function in Pregnant Women Referred to Health Centers-Medical City of Hamadan. Pajouhan Sci. J. 2020, 18, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sierra, J.C.; Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Calvillo, C. Validity Evidence and Norms of the Spanish Version of the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy. Psicothema 2020, 32, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dosch, A.; Belayachi, S.; Van der Linden, M. Implicit and Explicit Sexual Attitudes: How Are They Related to Sexual Desire and Sexual Satisfaction in Men and Women? J. Sex Res. 2016, 53, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Vowels, L.M.; Vowels, M.J.; Mark, K.P. Uncovering the Most Important Factors for Predicting Sexual Desire Using Explainable Machine Learning. J. Sex. Med 2021, 18, 1198–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zubeidat, I.; Sierra, J.C. Influencias de diferentes factores psicológicos sobre el deseo sexual. Rev. Argent. Clin. Psicol. 2003, 12, 69–83. [Google Scholar]
  18. Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Calvillo, C.; Granados, R.; Álvarez-Muelas, A.; Sierra, J.C. The Spanish Version of the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS-6): Evidence of Validity of a Short Version. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 2020, 13, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sierra, J.C.; Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Granados, M.R.; Sánchez-Fuentes, M.d.M.; Calvillo, C.; Moyano, N. Escalas de Valoración de Excitación Sexual y Valoración de Sensaciones Genitales: Propiedades psicométricas en muestras españolas. Rev. Int. Androl. 2017, 15, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cervilla, O.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; de la Torre, D.; Sierra, J.C. Validation of the Orgasm Rating Scale in the Context of Masturbation. Psicothema 2022, 34, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cervilla, O.; Sierra, J.C. Masturbation Parameters Related to Orgasm Satisfaction in Sexual Relationships: Differences between Men and Women. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 903361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sánchez-Fuentes, M.M.; Salinas, J.M.; Sierra, J.C. Use of an Ecological Model to Study Sexual Satisfaction in a Heterosexual Spanish Sample. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2016, 45, 1973–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fisher, W.A.; White, L.A.; Byrne, D.; Kelley, K. Erotophobia-erotophilia as a Dimension of Personality. J. Sex Res. 1988, 25, 123–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Blanc, A.; Byers, E.S.; Rojas, A.J. Evidence for the Validity of the Attitudes Toward Sexual Behaviours Scale (ASBS) with Canadian Young People. Can. J. Hum. Sex 2018, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vallejo-Medina, P.; Marchal-Bertrand, L.; Gómez-Lugo, M.; Espada, J.P.; Sierra, J.C.; Soler, F.; Morales, A. Adaptation and Validation of the Brief Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) in a Colombian Sample and Factorial Equivalence with the Spanish Version. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Sánchez-Fuentes, M.M.; Moyano, N.; Granados, R.; Sierra, J.C. Validation of the Spanish Version of the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX) Using Self-Reported and Psychophysiological Measures. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Salud 2019, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sierra, J.C.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Santos-Iglesias, P.; Moyano, N.; Granados, M.R.; Sánchez-Fuentes, M.M. Funcionamiento sexual en personas mayores: Influencia de la edad y de factores psicosexuales. Rev. Int. Androl. 2014, 12, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vallejo-Medina, P.; Granados, M.R.; Sierra, J.C. Propuesta y validación de una versión breve del Sexual Opinion Survey en población española. Rev. Int. Androl. 2014, 12, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. van Lankveld, J.; Wolfs, K.; Grauvogl, A. Gender Differences in the Relationship of Sexual Functioning with Implicit and Explicit Sex Liking and Sex Wanting: A Community Sample Study. J. Sex Res. 2020, 57, 860–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ortega, V.; Zubeidat, I.; Sierra, J.C. Further Examination of Measurement Properties of Spanish Version of the Sexual Desire Inventory with Undergraduates and Adolescent Students. Psychol. Rep. 2006, 99, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Santos-Iglesias, P.; Calvillo, C.; Sierra, J.C. A Further Examination of Levine’s Model of Sexual Desire. Psychol. Sex. 2013, 4, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Silva, J.; Ferreira, S.; Barros, V.; Mourão, A.; Corrêa, G.; Caridade, S.; Sousa, H.F.P.e.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Leite, Â. Associations between Cues of Sexual Desire and Sexual Attitudes in Portuguese Women. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1292–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Nowosielski, K.; Kurpisz, J.; Kowalczyk, R.; Lew-Starowicz, M. Sexual Inhibition and Sexual Excitation Scales in Men: Psychometric Properties of a Polish Adaptation. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021, 50, 2741–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Schippers, E.E.; Smid, W.J.; Both, S.; Smit, J.H. Excitation Transfer Between Sexual Arousal and Other Emotions in a Community Sample. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 3905–3918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Granados, M.R.; Salinas, J.M.; Sierra, J.C. Spanish Version of the Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women: Factorial Structure, Reliability and Validity Evidences. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2017, 17, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Granados, M.R.; Salinas, J.M.; Sierra, J.C. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales for Men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2018, 47, 783–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hangen, F.; Rogge, R.D. Focusing the Conceptualization of Erotophilia and Erotophobia on Global Attitudes Toward Sex: Development and Validation of the Sex Positivity–Negativity Scale. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 521–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Leitenberg, H.; Henning, K. Sexual Fantasy. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117, 469–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moyano, N.; Sierra, J.C. Fantasías y pensamientos sexuales: Revisión conceptual y relación con la salud sexual. Rev. Puertorriqueña Psicol. 2014, 25, 376–393. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sánchez-Fuentes, M.d.M.; Santos-Iglesias, P.; Sierra, J.C. A Systematic Review of Sexual Satisfaction. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2014, 14, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Santos-Iglesias, P.; Sierra, J.C.; Vallejo-Medina, P. Predictors of Sexual Assertiveness: The Role of Sexual Desire, Arousal, Attitudes, and Partner Abuse. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2013, 42, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cervilla, O.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; Sierra, J.C. Development of the Spanish Short Version of Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2021, 21, 100222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hurlbert, D.F.; Apt, C. Female Sexuality: A Comparative Study between Women in Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships. J. Sex Marital Ther. 1993, 19, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Desvarieux, A.R.; Salamanca, Y.; Ortega, V.; Sierra, Y.J.C. Validación de la versión en castellano del Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy: Una medida de actitud hacia las fantasías sexuales. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2005, 22, 529–539. [Google Scholar]
  45. Carvalheira, A.; Leal, I. Masturbation Among Women: Associated Factors and Sexual Response in a Portuguese Community Sample. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2013, 39, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Coleman, E. Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2003, 14, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sierra, J.C.; Iglesias, P.S.; Monge, F.S. Inventario de actitudes negativas hacia la masturbación: Validez, fiabilidad y propuesta de una versión reducida para población adolescente. Rev. Argent. Clin. Psicol. 2013, 22, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ortega, V.; Ojeda, P.; Sutil, F.; Sierra, J.C. Culpabilidad sexual en adolescentes: Estudio de algunos factores relacionados. An. Psicol. 2005, 21, 268–275. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sierra, J.C.; Perla, F.; Santos-Iglesias, P. Culpabilidad Sexual En Jóvenes: Influencia de Las Actitudes y La Experiencia Sexual. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2011, 43, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  50. Abramson, P.R.; Mosher, D.L. The Development of a Measure of Negative Attitudes toward Masturbation. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1975, 43, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mosher, D.L. Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation. In Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures; Fisher, T.D., Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 487–488. [Google Scholar]
  52. Reis, M.; Ramiro, L.; Matos, M.G.d.; Diniz, J.A.; Simões, C. Relação Entre Atitudes Sexuais, Conhecimentos E Atitudes Sobre Vih/Sida Na Orientação Sexual. Psicol. Saúde Doenças 2013, 14, 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sierra, J.C.; Ortega, V.; Gutiérrez-Quintanilla, J.R. Encuesta De Opinión Sexual: Fiabilidad, Validez Y Datos Normativos De Una Versión Reducida En Muestras Salvadoreñas. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2008, 25, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
  54. Allen, M.S.; Desille, A.E. Personality and Sexuality in Older Adults. Psychol. Health 2017, 32, 843–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Leri, G.; DelPriore, D.J. Understanding Variation in Women’s Sexual Attitudes and Behavior across Sexual Orientations: Evaluating Three Hypotheses. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2021, 173, 110629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, C.C.D.; Schale, C.L.; Broz, K.K. Adult Attachment; Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity; and Sexual Attitudes of Nonheterosexual Individuals. J. Coll. Couns. 2010, 13, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Byrne, B.M.; Shavelson, R.J.; Muthén, B. Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 105, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Muñiz, J.; Elosua, P.; Hambleton, R.K. Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición. Psicothema 2013, 25, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Álvarez-Muelas, A.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Sierra, J.C. Invariance of Spanish Version of Sexual Double Standard Scale across Sex, Age, and Education Level. Psicothema 2019, 31, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Arcos-Romero, A.I.; Sierra, J.C. Factorial Invariance, Differential Item Functioning, and Norms of the Orgasm Rating Scale. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2019, 19, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brown, A.; Barker, E.D.; Rahman, Q. Development and Psychometric Validation of the Sexual Fantasies and Behaviors Inventory. Psychol. Assess. 2022, 34, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Camp, J.; Vitoratou, S.; Rimes, K.A. The Self-Acceptance of Sexuality Inventory (SASI): Development and Validation. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2022, 9, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hazzard, V.M.; Schaefer, L.M.; Thompson, J.K.; Murray, S.B.; Frederick, D.A. Measurement Invariance of Body Image Measures by Age, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Race, Weight Status, and Age: The U.S. Body Project I. Body Image 2022, 41, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Levant, R.; Pryor, S.; Silver, K.E. The Woman’s Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire-Short Form (WNSQ-SF): Development, Variance Composition, Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance. Gend. Issues 2022, 39, 409–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sánchez-Fuentes, M.d.M.; Moyano, N.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; Sierra, J.C. Invariance of the Sexual Double Standard Scale: A Cross-Cultural Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Santos-Iglesias, P.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Sierra, J.C. Equivalence and Standard Scores of the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness Across Spanish Men and Women. An. Psiychol. 2014, 30, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sierra, J.C.; Santos-Iglesias, P.; Vallejo-Medina, P. Evaluación de la equivalencia factorial y métrica de la Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) por sexo. Psicothema 2012, 24, 316–322. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kinsey, A.C.; Pomeroy, W.R.; Martin, C.E. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948 Original); Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  69. Álvarez-Muelas, A.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; Sierra, J.C. Study of Sexual Satisfaction in Different Typologies of Adherence to the Sexual Double Standard. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 609571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sierra, J.C.; Moyano, N.; Vallejo-Medina, P.; Gómez-Berrocal, C. An Abridged Spanish Version of Sexual Double Standard Scale: Factorial Structure, Reliability and Validity Evidence. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2018, 18, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2020. Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  72. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R (Computer Software version 2022.12.0.353); RStudio PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  73. Stekhoven, D.J.; Bühlmann, P. MissForest—Non-Parametric Missing Value Imputation for Mixed-Type Data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Milfont, T.L.; Fischer, R. Testing Measurement Invariance across Groups: Applications in Cross-Cultural Research. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 2010, 3, 112–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Putnick, D.L.; Bornstein, M.H. Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research. Dev. Rev. 2016, 41, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Choi, S.W.; Gibbons, L.E.; Crane, P.K. Lordif: An R Package for Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Iterative Hybrid Ordinal Logistic Regression/Item Response Theory and Monte Carlo Simulations. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 39, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Calvillo, C.; Sánchez-Fuentes, M.M.; Parrón-Carreño, T.; Sierra, J.C. Validation of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire in Adults with a Same-Sex Partner. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2020, 20, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Guillot-Valdés, M.; Guillén-Riquelme, A.; Buela-Casal, G. Reliability and Validity of the Basic Depression Questionnaire. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2019, 19, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pineda, D.; Martín-Vivar, M.; Sandín, B.; Piqueras, J.A. Factorial Invariance and Norms of the 30-Item Shortened-Version of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS-30). Psicothema 2018, 30, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bhugra, D.; Rahman, Q.; Bhintade, R. Sexual Fantasy in Gay Men in India: A Comparison with Heterosexual Men. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2006, 21, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bivona, J.M.; Critelli, J.W.; Clark, M.J. Women’s Rape Fantasies: An Empirical Evaluation of the Major Explanations. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012, 41, 1107–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Masters, W.H.; Johnson, V.E.; Översättning, S.; Lisper, H.O. Homosexuality in Perspective. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 1982, 11, 54–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Robinson, J.D.; Parks, C.W. Lesbian and Bisexual Women’s Sexual Fantasies, Psychological Adjustment, and Close Relationship Functioning. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2004, 15, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Newbury, R.; Hayter, M.; Wylie, K.R.; Riddell, J. Sexual Fantasy as a Clinical Intervention. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2012, 27, 358–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Soto, C.J.; John, O.P.; Gosling, S.D.; Potter, J. The Developmental Psychometrics of Big Five Self-Reports: Acquiescence, Factor Structure, Coherence, and Differentiation from Ages 10 to 20. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 94, 718–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Castellini, G.; Fanni, E.; Corona, G.; Maseroli, E.; Ricca, V.; Maggi, M. Psychological, Relational, and Biological Correlates of Ego-Dystonic Masturbation in a Clinical Setting. Sex. Med. 2016, 4, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Cowden, C.R.; Koch, P.B. Attitudes Related to Sexual Concerns: Gender and Orientation Comparisons. J. Sex Educ. Ther. 1995, 21, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Blaydes, L.; Grimmer, J. Political Cultures: Measuring Values Heterogeneity. Political Sci. Res. Methods 2020, 8, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Briñol, P.; Falces, C.; Becerra, A. Actitudes. In Psicología Social, 3rd ed.; Cejudo, J.M., Ed.; McGraw-Hill: Madrid, Spain, 2007; pp. 457–490. [Google Scholar]
  91. Renaud, C.A.; Byers, E. Exploring the Frequency, Diversity, and Content of University Students’ Positive and Negative Sexual Cognitions. Can. J. Hum. Sex 1999, 8, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  92. Krosnick, J.A.; Betz, A.L.; Jussim, L.J.; Lynn, A.R. Subliminal Conditioning of Attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Penke, L. Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures; Fisher, T.D., Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 622–624. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 20 01820 g001 550
Figure 1. DIF of NATMI for sexual orientation.
Figure 1. DIF of NATMI for sexual orientation.
Ijerph 20 01820 g001
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample by sexual orientation.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample by sexual orientation.
Heterosexual PeopleBisexual PeopleGay People
Gender n (%)
Men400 (50.00)294 (42.40)399 (49.90)
Women400 (50.00)400 (57.60)400 (50.10)
Age M (SD)40.74 (12.78)29.35 (11.18)34.91 (11.57)
Education level n (%)
Primary Education184 (23.00)15 (2.20)15 (1.80)
Secondary Education121 (15.13)113 (16.30)134 (16.80)
University Degree485 (60.62)507 (73.10)564 (70.60)
Other10 (1.25)50 (7.20)79 (9.90)
Age of first sexual relationship M (SD)17.87 (3.48)16.79 (2.76)17.81 (4.08)
Number of sexual partners M (SD)11.44 (19.56)15.84 (29.52)29.87 (54.24)
Partner relationship n (%)
Yes585 (73.10)393 (56.60)480 (60.10)
No215 (26.90)301 (43.40)319 (39.90)
Sexual activity in the relationship in the last 3 months n (%)
Yes550 (68.75)226 (32.60)326 (40.80)
No35 (4.37)11 (1.60)35 (4.40)
Sexual activity without a partner in the last 3 months n (%)
Yes199 (24.87)199 (28.7)208 (26)
No16 (2.00)92 (13.30)106 (13.30)
Current masturbation frequency n (%)
More than once a day39 (4.90)42 (6.10)41 (5.10)
Once a day87 (10.90)105 (15.10)136 (17.00)
A few times a week372 (46.50)401 (57.80)424 (53.10)
A few times a month192 (24)106 (15.30)138 (17.30)
Less than once a month75 (9.40)35 (5.00)50 (6.30)
Never35 (4.40)5 (0.70)10 (1.30)
Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of items from SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of items from SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Heterosexual PeopleBisexual PeopleGay People
SOS
(Range 1–7)		MeM (SD)MeM (SD)MeM (SD)
Item 176.25 (1.33)75.98 (1.47)75.52 (1.96)
Item 276.53 (1.08)76.59 (0.96)76.56 (0.92)
Item 376.28 (1.25)76.01 (1.38)65.62 (1.79)
Item 476.11 (1.32)76.14 (1.31)76.04 (1.34)
Item 576.41 (1.24)76.26 (1.39)76.43 (1.22)
Item 675.89 (1.61)76.05 (1.54)76.09 (1.54)
HISF
(Range 0–4)		MeM (SD)MeM (SD)MeM (SD)
Item 143.42 (0.73)33.27 (0.77)43.42 (0.72)
Item 243.34 (0.85)33.27 (0.86)43.37 (0.83)
Item 332.80 (1.19)32.84 (1.17)32.77 (1.13)
Item 433.18 (1.00)33.14 (1.00)43.19 (0.97)
Item 532.87 (0.88)32.67 (0.93)32.84 (0.89)
Item 633.08 (1.11)33.10 (1.03)33.03 (1.11)
Item 732.72 (0.96)32.66 (0.96)32.70 (0.97)
Item 833.26 (0.80)33.08 (0.88)33.21 (0.81)
Item 932.91 (1.08)32.87 (1.00)32.89 (1.06)
Item 1032.95 (1.10)32.94 (1.09)32.89 (1.06)
NATMI (Range 1–5)MeM (SD)MeM (SD)MeM (SD)
Item 111.09 (0.46)11.06 (0.36)11.04 (0.22)
Item 211.11 (0.41)11.05 (0.27)11.05 (0.27)
Item 311.07 (0.41)11.04 (0.33)11.02 (0.22)
Item 411.09 (0.42)11.04 (0.26)11.02 (0.17)
Item 511.19 (0.59)11.30 (0.75)11.16 (0.52)
Item 611.08 (0.38)11.05 (0.25)11.02 (0.14)
Item 711.22 (0.64)11.12 (0.45)11.07 (0.35)
Item 811.10 (0.45)11.15 (0.49)11.07 (0.35)
Item 911.17 (0.47)11.12 (0.54)11.17 (0.71)
Item 1011.16 (0.55)11.15 (0.54)11.12 (0.49)
Note. Me = median. M = mean. SD = standard deviation. Sexual orientation: heterosexual (n = 800), bisexual (n = 694), and gay (n = 800).
Table
Table 3. CFA fit indices for SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Table 3. CFA fit indices for SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Modelχ2 (df)CFITLIRMSEA (90% CI)
SOS148.806 (45) ***0.9480.9130.053 (0.045, 0.061)
HISF2451.967 (135) ***0.9360.9180.099 (0.096, 0.103)
NATMI342.429 (135) ***0.9500.9350.025 (0.022, 0.028)
Note. SOS: Sexual Opinion Survey; HISF: Hurlbert Index of Sexual Fantasy; NATMI: Negative Attitudes Toward Masturbation Inventory. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Measurement invariance across sexual orientation for SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Table 4. Measurement invariance across sexual orientation for SOS, HISF, and NATMI.
Invariance Modelχ2 (df)CFITLIRMSEA (90% CI)ΔCFIInvariance
SOS
Configural126.314 (45) ***0.9420.9040.050 (0.041, 0.058)-Yes
Weak119.137 (45) ***0.9360.9220.045 (0.036, 0.054)0.006Yes
Strong295.510 (45) ***0.8000.8080.070 (0.062, 0.078)0.136No
Strict500.485 (45) ***0.6310.7190.085 (0.079, 0.082)0.169No
HISF
Configural2439.893 (135) ***0.9140.8900.108 (0.104, 0.112)-Yes
Weak1732.245 (135) ***0.9120.9040.101 (0.097, 0.105)0.002Yes
Strong1826.219 (135) ***0.9080.9110.097 (0.093, 0.101)0.004Yes
Strict1836.110 (135) ***0.9040.9200.092 (0.088, 0.096)0.004Yes
NATMI
Configural342.286 (135) ***0.9480.9330.023 (0.020, 0.026)-Yes
Weak230.978 (135) ***0.9470.9410.021 (0.017, 0.026)0.001Yes
Strong413.200 (135) ***0.8560.8620.033 (0.029, 0.036)0.091No
Strict494.156 (135) ***0.8090.8400.035 (0.032, 0.039)0.047No
Note. Sexual orientation: heterosexual (n = 800), bisexual (n = 694), and gay (n = 800). *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Differential item functioning: probabilities (p) associated with the models (M) of the regression and effect size.
Table 5. Differential item functioning: probabilities (p) associated with the models (M) of the regression and effect size.

χ² (M2−M1)
p
χ² (M3−M2)
p		R2 Nagelkerke
(M2−M1)		R2 Nagelkerke
(M3−M2)
SOS
Item 10.001.000.001.000.0250.012
Item 20.330.8470.910.6340.00050.00
Item 30.001.000.001.000.0310.009
Item 40.020.9890.540.7650.0010.0002
Item 50.00040.9990.010.9930.0060.003
Item 60.0030.9990.670.7140.0040.0003
HISF
Item 10.00010.9990.840.6550.0060.0001
Item 20.040.9790.570.7500.0020.0003
Item 30.0010.9990.690.7090.0030.0002
Item 40.600.7390.160.9220.00030.001
Item 50.00040.9990.580.7500.0050.0003
Item 60.0040.9970.250.8850.0020.0005
Item 70.780.6780.930.6280.00020.00
Item 80.0020.9990.470.7890.0030.0004
Item 90.640.7260.300.8590.00010.0004
Item 100.010.9970.460.7950.0020.0003
NATMI
Item 10.120.9420.090.9550.0050.006
Item 20.210.9020.780.6770.0030.0005
Item 30.410.8150.040.9790.0030.012
Item 40.760.6840.780.6760.00080.0007
Item 50.001.000.001.000.0430.009
Item 60.580.7490.8970.6390.0010.0003
Item 70.0010.9990.430.8070.0090.001
Item 80.001.000.020.9910.0600.005
Item 90.0020.9990.060.9700.0090.004
Item 100.001.000.020.9890.0150.004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muñoz-García, L.E.; Gómez-Berrocal, C.; Guillén-Riquelme, A.; Sierra, J.C. Measurement Invariance across Sexual Orientation for Measures of Sexual Attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1820. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20031820

AMA Style

Muñoz-García LE, Gómez-Berrocal C, Guillén-Riquelme A, Sierra JC. Measurement Invariance across Sexual Orientation for Measures of Sexual Attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):1820. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20031820

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muñoz-García, Laura Elvira, Carmen Gómez-Berrocal, Alejandro Guillén-Riquelme, and Juan Carlos Sierra. 2023. "Measurement Invariance across Sexual Orientation for Measures of Sexual Attitudes" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 1820. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20031820

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop