Turkish validity and reliability study of male genital self-image scale (MGSIS)

Abstract

Objective:

This study, which was carried out in order to determine the Turkish validity and reliability of the “Male Genital Self-Image Scale” in a population sample of Turkish men, is of methodological type.

Methods:

In the study, language, content, construct validity, and reliability methods were used for the intercultural adaptation of the scale. The data collection process of the scale was carried out with 336 men who applied to the Family Medicine Polyclinic of a hospital. In the language and content validity phase, the opinions of experts with technical and cultural knowledge were consulted. The data of the study were collected with the Sociodemographic Characteristics Form and the Male Genital Self-Image Scale.

Results:

As a result of experts evaluation, the Content Validity Ratio value was determined as 0.83. At the stage of construct validity, the suitability of the single-factor model of the items of the Male Genital Self-Image Scale was tested. It was determined that all items contributed significantly to the factor (0.62–0.92). As a result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the measurement model was statistically validated (χ2 = 32.083, p = 0.001, χ2/df = 2.917, RMSEA = 0.076). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as α = 0.92 in the analysis performed to evaluate the internal consistency of Male Genital Self-Image Scale.

Conclusion:

The results of the study revealed that Male Genital Self-Image Scale is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate genital self-image in Turkish men.

Keywords

Male genital self-image validity reliability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schilder

The image and appearance of the Human Body. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2013.

McClintock

EA.

Handsome wants as handsome does: physical attractiveness and gender differences in revealed sexual preferences. Biodemography Soc Biol 2011; 57: 221–257.

Woertman

van den Brink

Body Image and female sexual functioning and behavior: a Review. J Sex Res 2012; 49: 184–211.

Knafo

Haythornthwaite

Heinberg

, et al. The association of body image dissatisfaction and pain with reduced sexual function in women with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology 2011; 50: 1125–1130.

Saffari

Pakpour

Burri

Cross-cultural adaptation of the male genital self-image scale in Iranian men. Sex Med 2016; 4: e34–e42.

Satinsky

Reece

Dennis

, et al. An assessment of body appreciation and its relationship to sexual function in women. Body Image 2012; 9: 137–144.

Schick

Calabrese

Rima

, et al. Genital appearance dissatisfaction: Implications for women’s genital image self-consciousness, sexual esteem, sexual satisfaction, and sexual risk. Psychol Women Q 2010; 34: 394–404.

Yulevitch

Czamanski-Cohen

Segal

, et al. The vagina dialogues: genital self-image and communication with physicians about sexual dysfunction and dissatisfaction among Jewish patients in a women’s health clinic in Southern Israel. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 3059–3068.

Waltner

Genital identity: a core component of sexual- and self-identity. J Sex Res 1986; 22: 399–402.

10.

Berman

Miles

, et al. Genital self-image as a component of sexual health: relationship between genital self-image, female sexual function, and quality of life measures. J Sex Marital Ther 2003; 29 Suppl 1: 11–21.

11.

DeMaria

Hollub

Herbenick

The female genital self-image scale (FGSIS): validation among a sample of female college students. J Sex Med 2012; 9: 708–718.

12.

Herbenick

Reece

Development and validation of the female genital self-image scale. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 1822–1830.

13.

Çokluk Şekercioğlu

Büyüköztürk . Sosyal Bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık, 2012.

14.

Şencan

Sosyal ve Davranışsal ölçümlerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2005.

15.

Erdoğan

Nahcivan

Esin

Hemşirelikte Araştırma Süreç, Uygulama ve Kritik. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri, 2014.

16.

Alpar

CR.

Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenilirlik. 3rd ed. Ankara, Turkey: Detay Yayıncılık, 2014.

17.

İslamoğlu

Alnıaçık . Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. İstanbul: Beta, 2016.

18.

Herbenick

Schick

Reece

, et al. The development and validation of the male genital self-image scale: results from a nationally representative probability sample of men in the United States. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 1516–1525.

19.

Beaton

Bombardier

Guillemin

, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186–3191.

20.

Lawshe

CH.

A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 1975; 28: 563–575.

21.

Ayre

Scally

AJ.

Critical Values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2014; 47: 79–86.

22.

Sönmez

Alacapınar

FG.

Örneklendirilmiş Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara, Turkey: Anı Yayıncılık, 2013.

23.

Çapık

Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilim Derg 2014; 17: 196–205.

24.

Seçer . Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara, Turkey: Anı Yayıncılık, 2015.

25.

Seçer . SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi analiz ve raporlaştırma. Ankara, Turkey: Anı Yayıncılık, 2017.

26.

Sümer

Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulama. Türk Psikol Yazıları 2000; 3: 49–73.

27.

Tang

Eisma

, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht grief rumination scale. Clin Psychol Psychother 2019; 26: 262–272.

28.

Eisma

Stroebe

Schut

, et al. Avoidance processes mediate the relationship between rumination and symptoms of complicated grief and depression following loss. J Abnorm Psychol 2013; 122: 961–970.

29.

Doering

Barke

Friehs

, et al. Assessment of grief-related rumination: validation of the German version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS). BMC Psychiatry 2018; 18: 43.

30.

Klein

RB.

Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2016.

31.

Wilcox

Redmond

Davis

TL.

Genital image, sexual anxiety, and erectile dysfunction among young male military personnel. J Sex Med 2015; 12: 1389–1397.

32.

Mokkink

de Vet

HCW

Prinsen

CAC

, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 1171–1179.

33.

Terwee

Prinsen

CAC

Chiarotto

, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 1159–1170.

34.

Prinsen

CAC

Mokkink

Bouter

, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 1147–1157.

35.

de Arruda

da Silva

Braz

MM.

Male genital self-image scale (MGSIS): cutoff point, cultural adaptation and validation of measurement properties in Brazilian men. J Sex Med 2021; 18: 1759–1767.

36.

Başkaya

Yılmaz

Özerdoğan

Erkek öğretmenlerde cinsel sağlık problemleri ve ilişkili faktörlerin belirlenmesi: web tabanlı araştırma. Androloji Bülteni 2019; 21: 50–55.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB