Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Women's Health Reviews
  4. Volume 21, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1573-4048
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6581

Abstract

Background and Aim

Couples’ sexual communication is one of the contributing factors to the quality of couples’ sexual relationships. The aim of the present study was to psychometrically evaluate the Persian version of the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSCS) among married women of reproductive age.

Methods

In this psychometric study, translation was carried out using the back-translation method. The validity of the final version of the DSCS was performed using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity was examined using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and Marital Intimacy Scale (MIS). Reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Data analysis was performed using SPSS and Mplus software.

Results

The participants comprised 400 married women with a mean age of 35.66 years living in Qazvin, Iran. Construct validity was confirmed based on confirmatory factor analysis (χ2[df]: 113.49 (65), Tucker-Lewis index: 0.980, Composite Reliability: 0.87, SRMSR: 0.065, RMSEA: 0.043, CFI: 0.983. Concurrent validity was analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients, and the DSCS was positively correlated with scores on the MIS (0.64) and FSFI (0.65) and negatively correlated with scores on the FSDS (-0.61). The internal reliability of the Persian DSCS was very good (Cronbach’s alpha=0.88).

Conclusion

Based on psychometric testing, the Persian DSCS has good validity and reliability. Therefore, the tool can be used to assess women’s sexual communication in the context of sexual relationships. Future research should include males, and compare and contrast results with females.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
2024-01-29
2024-12-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. RoustitC. ChaixB. ChauvinP. Family breakup and adolescents’ psychosocial maladjustment: Public health implications of family disruptions.Pediatrics20071204e984e99110.1542/peds.2006‑317217908754
     [Google Scholar]
  2. FunkJ.L. RoggeR.D. Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.J. Fam. Psychol.200721457258310.1037/0893‑3200.21.4.57218179329
     [Google Scholar]
  3. LaumannE.O. PaikA. GlasserD.B. KangJ.H. WangT. LevinsonB. MoreiraE.D.Jr NicolosiA. GingellC. A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: findings from the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors.Arch. Sex. Behav.200635214315910.1007/s10508‑005‑9005‑316752118
     [Google Scholar]
  4. HendrickS.S. DickeA. HendrickC. The Relationship Assessment Scale.J. Soc. Pers. Relat.199815113714210.1177/0265407598151009
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BaumeisterR.F. VohsK.D. TiceD.M. The strength model of self-control.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.200716635135510.1111/j.1467‑8721.2007.00534.x
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Sánchez-FuentesMdM. A systematic review of sexual satisfaction.Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol.2014141
     [Google Scholar]
  7. MacNeilS. ByersE.S. Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples.J. Sex Res.200946131410.1080/0022449080239839919012061
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HendersonA.W. LehavotK. SimoniJ.M. Ecological models of sexual satisfaction among lesbian/bisexual and heterosexual women.Arch. Sex. Behav.2009381506510.1007/s10508‑008‑9384‑318574685
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EdwardsJN BoothA Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle years.Sexuality across the life course.The University of Chicago Press1994
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ByersE.S. DemmonsS. Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships.J. Sex Res.199936218018910.1080/00224499909551983
     [Google Scholar]
  11. MestonC. TrapnellP. Development and validation of a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women: The Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (SSS-W).J. Sex. Med.200521668110.1111/j.1743‑6109.2005.20107.x16422909
     [Google Scholar]
  12. LiptonJ.E. Gender gap: The biology of male-female differences.Transaction Publishers2002
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HawtonK. Sex therapy: A practical guide.Oxford University Press1985
     [Google Scholar]
  14. TrudelG. Sexuality and marital life: Results of a survey.J. Sex Marital Ther.200228322924910.1080/00926230276032827111995602
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HurlbertD.F. The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women.J. Sex Marital Ther.199117318319010.1080/009262391084043421758001
     [Google Scholar]
  16. BlanchardV.L. HawkinsA.J. BaldwinS.A. FawcettE.B. Investigating the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples’ communication skills: A meta-analytic study.J. Fam. Psychol.200923220321410.1037/a001521119364214
     [Google Scholar]
  17. McManusT.G. DonovanS. Communication competence and feeling caught: Explaining perceived ambiguity in divorce-related communication.Commun. Q.201260225527710.1080/01463373.2012.669328
     [Google Scholar]
  18. RoelsR. JanssenE. Sexual and relationship satisfaction in young, heterosexual couples: The role of sexual frequency and sexual communication.J. Sex. Med.20201791643165210.1016/j.jsxm.2020.06.01332694066
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MuiseA. MaxwellJ.A. ImpettE.A. What theories and methods from relationship research can contribute to sex research.J. Sex Res.2018554-554056210.1080/00224499.2017.142160829419322
     [Google Scholar]
  20. HerbenickD. Eastman-MuellerH. FuT. DodgeB. PonanderK. SandersS.A. Women’s sexual satisfaction, communication, and reasons for (no longer) faking orgasm: Findings from a U.S. probability sample.Arch. Sex. Behav.20194882461247210.1007/s10508‑019‑01493‑031502071
     [Google Scholar]
  21. HematiL. ShayanA. KazemiF. SoltaniF. Reducing sexual communication anxiety of women upon marriage: A randomized quasi-experimental study from iran.Curr. Womens Health Rev.202117212112710.2174/1573404817999201221113642
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Merghati KhoeiE. MoeiniB. BaratiM. SoltanianA.R. ShahpiriE. GhaleihaA. BagherikholenjaniF. A qualitative inquiry of sexuality in Iranian couples using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral skills paradigm.J. Egypt. Public Health Assoc.20199412710.1186/s42506‑019‑0024‑732813061
     [Google Scholar]
  23. AlimoradiZ. GhorbaniS. BahramiN. GriffithsM.D. PakpourA.H. Socio-demographic predictors of dyadic sexual communication among Iranian married women.Sexologies202231431131710.1016/j.sexol.2021.09.003
     [Google Scholar]
  24. NasrollahiMolaN. BahramiN. RanjbaranM. AlimoradiZ. Predictors of sexual assertiveness in a sample of Iranian married women of reproductive age.Sex. Relationship Ther.2023381748610.1080/14681994.2020.1740672
     [Google Scholar]
  25. YoungME LongLL Counseling and therapy for couples.Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co1998
     [Google Scholar]
  26. AhmadiK Fathi-AshtianiA NavabinejadS The study of contextual-personal and relationship-mutual factors on marital adjustment.Family Res.200513221237
     [Google Scholar]
  27. DeVellisR.F. Classical test theory.Med. Care20064411S50S5910.1097/01.mlr.0000245426.10853.3017060836
     [Google Scholar]
  28. ThomasM.L. Advances in applications of item response theory to clinical assessment.Psychol. Assess.201931121442145510.1037/pas000059730869966
     [Google Scholar]
  29. HimelfarbI. A primer on standardized testing: History, measurement, classical test theory, item response theory, and equating. J. Chiropr. Educ.201933215116310.7899/JCE‑18‑2231169998
     [Google Scholar]
  30. WrightB.D. MokM. Understanding Rasch measurement: Rasch models overview.J. Appl. Meas.2000
     [Google Scholar]
  31. CataniaJ.A. Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale.Handbook of sexuality-related measures.Routledge1998
     [Google Scholar]
  32. AlizadehS. EbadiA. KarimanN. OzgoliG. Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale: Psychometrics properties and translation of the Persian version.Sex. Relationship Ther.2020351103114
     [Google Scholar]
  33. DeRogatisL. PykeR. McCormackJ. HunterA. HardingG. Does the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised cover the feelings of women with HSDD?J. Sex. Med.20118102810281510.1111/j.1743‑6109.2011.02385.x21771282
     [Google Scholar]
  34. DeRogatisL. ClaytonA. Lewis-D’AgostinoD. WunderlichG. FuY. Validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised for assessing distress in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder.J. Sex. Med.20085235736410.1111/j.1743‑6109.2007.00672.x18042215
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Azimi NekooE. BurriA. AshraftiF. FridlundB. KoenigH.G. DerogatisL.R. PakpourA.H. Psychometric properties of the Iranian version of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised in women.J. Sex. Med.2014114995100410.1111/jsm.1244924641598
     [Google Scholar]
  36. KarimiB. KhalatbariJ. The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy on couple’s burnout, marital adjustment and intimacy.J. Educ. Psychol.2017816574
     [Google Scholar]
  37. RosenR. BrownC. HeimanJ. LeiblumS. MestonC. ShabsighR. FergusonD. D’AgostinoR.Jr The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function.J. Sex Marital Ther.200026219120810.1080/00926230027859710782451
     [Google Scholar]
  38. FakhriA. PakpourA.H. BurriA. MorshediH. ZeidiI.M. The Female Sexual Function Index: Translation and validation of an Iranian version.J. Sex. Med.20129251452310.1111/j.1743‑6109.2011.02553.x22146084
     [Google Scholar]
  39. RosseelY OberskiD ByrnesJ Package ‘lavaan’.2017Available from: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op= view_citation&hl=en&user=j3LryFEAAAAJ&citation_for_view= j3LryFEAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C
  40. LiC.H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares.Behav. Res. Methods201648393694910.3758/s13428‑015‑0619‑726174714
     [Google Scholar]
  41. SmithE.V.Jr Understanding Rasch measurement: Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimenstionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals.J. Appl. Meas.2002320523112011501
     [Google Scholar]
  42. LinacreJM WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program.WINSTEPS2011
     [Google Scholar]
  43. GagnonJ. SimonW. Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality: A 25th anniversay retrospective.Thousand Oaks, CASage Publications1999
     [Google Scholar]
  44. JonesA.C. RobinsonW.D. SeedallR.B. The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis.J. Marital Fam. Ther.201844460662310.1111/jmft.1228229044661
     [Google Scholar]
  45. VeltenJ. MargrafJ. Satisfaction guaranteed? How individual, partner, and relationship factors impact sexual satisfaction within partnerships.PLoS One2017122e017285510.1371/journal.pone.017285528231314
     [Google Scholar]
  46. MontesiJ.L. FauberR.L. GordonE.A. HeimbergR.G. The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction.J. Soc. Pers. Relat.201128559160910.1177/0265407510386833
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Salazar-MolinaA. KlijnT.P. DelgadoJ.B. Sexual satisfaction in couples in the male and female climacteric stage.Cad. Saude Publica201531231132010.1590/0102‑311X0005121425760165
     [Google Scholar]
  48. PazmanyE. BergeronS. VerhaegheJ. Van OudenhoveL. EnzlinP. Dyadic sexual communication in pre-menopausal women with self-reported dyspareunia and their partners: Associations with sexual function, sexual distress and dyadic adjustment.J. Sex. Med.201512251652810.1111/jsm.1278725475508
     [Google Scholar]
  49. ZacchilliTL The relationship between conflict and communication‚ sex‚ relationship satisfaction‚ and other relational variables in dating relationships.2007Available from:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Melanoma&term=SiRNA&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
  50. Suhr D. Principal component analysis versus exploratory factor analysis. 30th Statistical Analysis System Users Group International. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2005.
  51. PakpourA.H. GriffithsM.D. LinC.Y. Assessing the psychological response to the COVID-19: A response to Bitan et al. “Fear of COVID-19 scale: Psychometric characteristics, reliability and validity in the Israeli population”.Psychiatry Res.202029011312710.1016/j.psychres.2020.11312732502825
     [Google Scholar]
  52. KlineP. The handbook of psychological testing.2nd edLondonRoutledge2000
     [Google Scholar]
  53. CohenR. SwerdlikM. Test development. psychological testing and assessment.New York, NYMcGraw-Hill Higher Education2010
     [Google Scholar]
  54. AndersonA.B. RosenN.O. PriceL. BergeronS. Associations between penetration cognitions, genital pain, and sexual well-being in women with provoked vestibulodynia.J. Sex. Med.201613344445210.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.02426853045
     [Google Scholar]
  55. GreeneK. FaulknerS.L. Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships.Sex Roles2005533-423925110.1007/s11199‑005‑5682‑6
     [Google Scholar]
  56. RancourtK.M. RosenN.O. BergeronS. NealisL.J. Talking about sex when sex is painful: Dyadic sexual communication is associated with women’s pain, and couples’ sexual and psychological outcomes in provoked vestibulodynia.Arch. Sex. Behav.20164581933194410.1007/s10508‑015‑0670‑626739823
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Walker J, Almond P. Interpreting statistical findings: A guide for health professionals and students: A guide for health professionals and students.McGraw-hill education (UK)2010
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Pazmany E, Bergeron S, Verhaeghe J, Van Oudenhove L, Enzlin P. Sexual communication, dyadic adjustment, and psychosexual well-being in premenopausal women with self-reported dyspareunia and their partners: A controlled study.J Sex Med.20141171786179710.1111/jsm.1251824690206
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
Loading
Psychometric Properties of Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale- Persian Version
Current Women's Health Reviews 21, e290124226297 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
/content/journals/cwhr/10.2174/0115734048275113240101074113
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): data analysis; Dyadic sexual communication; marital intimacy scale; Persian Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale; psychometrics; sexual relationships

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test