Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
To cite this article: Stephanie D. Womack , Joshua N. Hook , Marciana Ramos , Don E. Davis & J. Kim
Penberthy (2013) Measuring Hypersexual Behavior, Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of
Treatment & Prevention, 20:1-2, 65-78
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 20:65–78, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1072-0162 print / 1532-5318 online
DOI: 10.1080/10720162.2013.768126
J. KIM PENBERTHY
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
65
66 S. D. Womack et al.
behavior have not yet been consolidated. Although there are many similar-
ities in how researchers define and operationalize problematic hypersexual
behavior, there are also some differences reflected across studies. This is
evident in the considerable debate regarding the best term or language used
to describe problematic hypersexual behavior (e.g., Bancroft & Vukadinovic,
2004; Gold & Heffner, 1998), which has made measurement of hypersexual
behavior a moving target. Not surprisingly, researchers have tended to use
measures that align with their preferred and sometimes idiosyncratic defini-
tions and conceptualizations. For example, some measures focused primarily
on level of sexual activity (e.g., number of orgasms per week), whereas other
measures focused on perceptions that the sexual behavior was out of con-
trol. Others attained information on the consequences of the hypersexual
behavior.
As the field of hypersexual behavior develops, it is likely that defini-
tions will begin to converge. The proposed diagnostic criteria of HD for the
DSM-5 may provide a catalyst for the convergence of definitions. Indeed,
the proposed diagnostic criteria have already generated ample debate (e.g.,
Halpern, 2011; Moser, 2011; Winters, 2010). As the definitions of hypersexual
behavior begin to converge, it is likely that the measurement of hypersexual
behavior will become more precise. However, given the variability of defini-
tions, conceptualizations, and measurement of hypersexual behavior at this
time, the purpose of the current review was to evaluate the extent to which
existing measures of hypersexual behavior aligned with the proposed diag-
nostic criteria for HD. We have also updated the list of measures to include
instruments not available at the time of the Hook et al. (2010) review.
METHOD
RESULTS
Clinical Interviews
Clinical interviews assessing hypersexual behavior are typically adminis-
tered by trained professionals, and assess symptoms and consequences of
Measuring Hypersexual Behavior 69
Criterion
Measure Items A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C D
Clinical Interviews
Diagnostic Interview for Sexual Compulsivity (DISC; 53 4 0 1 3 3 16 0 0
Morgenstern et al., 2009)
Hypersexual Disorder Diagnostic Clinical Interview 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0
(HDDCI; Reid, Carpenter et al., 2012)
Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory (HDSI; 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0
APA, 2012)
Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – 8 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0
Compulsive Sexual Behavior (YBOCS-CSB;
Morgenstern et al., 2009)
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 06:17 24 November 2014
Self-Report General
Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI; 28 1 1 1 4 7 6 0 0
Coleman et al., 2001)
Cyberporn Compulsivity Scale (CCS; Abell et al., 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
2006)
Cyber-Pornography Use Inventory (CPUI; Grubbs 39 5 0 1 5 1 12 0 0
et al., 2010)
Disorders Screening Inventory – Sexual Addiction 5 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0
Scale (DSI-SAS; Carter & Ruiz, 1996)
Garos Sexual Behavior Inventory (GSBI; Garos & 72 2 0 0 8 0 13 0 0
Stock, 1998)
Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (HBI; Reid et al., 19 0 4 3 4 2 3 0 0
2011)
Hypersexual Disorder Questionnaire (HDQ; Reid, 10 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0
Carpenter et al., 2012)
Internet Addiction Test – Sex (IAT-Sex; Brand et al., 20 3 2 0 1 0 8 0 0
2011)
Internet Sex Screening Test (ISST; Delmonico & 25 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 0
Carnes, 1999)
Minnesota Impulse Control Inventory Questionnaire 33 7 1 0 6 0 3 0 0
– Sexual Behavior Module (MICQ-S; Raymond
et al., 2003)
Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire (MSQ; 61 6 0 0 2 0 9 0 0
Snell et al., 1993)
Perceived Sexual Control Scale (PSCS; Exner et al., 20 0 0 0 9 8 0 0 0
1992)
Pornography Consumption Effects Scale (PCES; Hald 47 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0
& Malamuth, 2008)
Sex Addicts Anonymous Questionnaire (SAAQ; 16 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0
Mercer, 1998)
Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST; Carnes, 25 1 0 1 8 2 7 0 0
1989)
Sexual Addiction Screening Test for Gay Men 25 1 0 0 2 5 10 0 0
(G-SAST; Corley, 1999)
Sexual Addiction Screening Test for Women 25 1 0 1 5 3 6 0 0
(W-SAST; O’Hara, 1999)
Sexual Addiction Screening Test – Revised (SAST-R; 45 5 0 1 5 6 9 0 0
Carnes et al., 2010)
Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS; Kalichman et al., 10 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
1994)
(Continued on next page)
70 S. D. Womack et al.
Criterion
Measure Items A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C D
problem thoughts, urges, and behaviors. The format of the clinical interview,
which allows communication between the administrator and the participant,
has several strengths. Administrators can probe for more detailed answers
or more thorough explanations of symptoms, and participants can ask for
clarification on items that might be confusing or otherwise misunderstood.
Clinical interviews may be less subjective than self-report measures, and of-
ten include open-ended questions that allow for additional information to be
gathered. However, clinical interviews often require more time and energy
to administer than self-report measures, and participants might feel uncom-
fortable discussing distressing sexual thoughts and behaviors verbally with
another individual in certain settings.
The clinical interviews included in the present review varied in length
(i.e., three instruments contained eight questions and one instrument con-
tained 17 multi-part questions). Overall, the clinical interviews assessed a
greater number of the proposed diagnostic criteria for HD than the self-
report measures (M = 5.25 criteria per instrument), but did not provide
much in-depth information for each criterion (M = 1.82 items per HD crite-
rion). Thus, the clinical interviews may be useful for assessing the breadth
of the proposed HD criteria, but may not provide detailed information about
each criterion.
Examining the four instruments, the Hypersexual Disorder Diagnostic
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 06:17 24 November 2014
Clinical Interview (HDDCI; Reid et al., 2012) included items that fit all seven
of the proposed HD diagnostic criteria we analyzed, and the Hypersexual
Disorder Screening Inventory (HDSI; American Psychiatric Association, 2012)
addressed six, but each measure only included one or two items per criterion.
The Diagnostic Interview for Sexual Compulsivity (DISC; Morgenstern et al.,
2009) assessed five of the seven criteria we analyzed, but included more
items per criterion than the HDDCI. The Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive
Scale—Compulsive Sexual Behavior (YBOCS-CSB; Morgenstern et al., 2009)
only included items that fit three of the criteria, but included at least two
items per criterion.
DISCUSSION
ing definitions and measurement strategies. Should HD get adopted into the
DSM-5, the criteria may remain more stable. In the present review, we exam-
ined and summarized how well existing measures of hypersexuality relate
to the proposed criteria for HD.
Several measures of hypersexual behavior address the proposed diag-
nostic criteria for HD and could therefore be useful assessment tools for re-
searchers or clinicians interested in providing an accurate diagnosis of these
criteria. Most notably, all items on both the HDDCI (clinical interview) and
the HDQ (self-report of general symptoms) assess aspects of the proposed
criteria, and both measures assess seven out of eight criteria for HD. Other
measures such as the DISC and HDSI (clinical interviews), the HBI, ISST, and
all versions of the SAST (self-reports of general symptoms) would also be
useful for assessing HD because they include a multi-item assessment of at
least five of the proposed criteria. Several measures (CBOSB, CSBCS, HBCS,
DSI-SAS; SCS; CPUI) provide a thorough evaluation of one or two criteria
and might be useful for assessing specific issues (e.g., subjective distress,
risk of physical or emotional harm).
Although several measures fit exactly with the proposed criteria for
HD, the majority of instruments examined in the present review did not. For
example, one item on the CSBI (Coleman et al., 2001) asked participants how
often they promised to change their sexual behavior. This item is similar to
criterion A4 (i.e., repetitive and unsuccessful attempts to control or reduce
sexual behaviors), but does not align with the criterion exactly. Similarly,
one item on the SCS asked participants to rate a statement about feeling out
of control when aroused (Kalichman et al., 1994). This item also relates to
control of sexual behavior (criterion A4). However, neither item from the
CSBI nor the SCS fit the criterion as well as one item from the HDQ, which
specifically asked whether the participant had made unsuccessful attempts
to reduce or control sexual behaviors (Reid et al., 2012). Therefore, some
caution should be exercised in choosing measures to assess HD, because
the majority of instruments were designed before the proposed diagnostic
criteria were developed.
74 S. D. Womack et al.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the present review of measures. First, the
proposed criteria for HD were developed relatively recently, and even the
definition of “hypersexual behavior” has changed over time. Kafka (2010)
outlined a more detailed list of criteria for possible inclusion in the DSM-
5. Twenty-three of the measures included in this review (71.9%) pre-date
Kafka’s criteria for HD. Only nine of the measures included in the present
review (28.1%) were written after the proposed criteria for HD were es-
tablished. Given the short existence of formal criteria for HD, most of the
measures included in this review were not specifically designed to align
with the proposed criteria. Of the 12 measures that addressed five or more
criteria of HD, 7 were written after Kafka’s criteria were published (58.3%).
It is likely that the measures that fit well with the proposed criteria did so
because they were written after the criteria were proposed. In fact, four of
the measures in this review were specifically tailored for HD as outlined by
Kafka. Therefore, the poor fit of many measures to the proposed diagnostic
criteria may be a product of the time at which they were written and the
shifting nature of the definition of HD more so than a lack of utility.
Second, most of the measures only provide a partial picture of HD as
outlined by its diagnostic criteria. Twenty out of thirty-two measures (62.5%)
assessed four or fewer proposed criteria, making them less useful for a
comprehensive diagnosis of HD than measures such as the HDQ that assess
seven out of eight criteria.
Third, most of the instruments reviewed were self-report measures and
subjective in nature. They relied on the participant to define “excessive” hy-
persexual thoughts, urges, and behaviors, and therefore may not accurately
reflect the level of hypersexual behavior. It is possible that some partici-
pants might report higher levels of hypersexual behavior because they feel
that any “unsuitable” thoughts or behaviors are “excessive” (e.g., individu-
als from conservative religious groups; Kwee, Dominguez, & Ferrell, 2007).
On the other hand, some participants may fail to report significant levels
Measuring Hypersexual Behavior 75
REFERENCES
∗
Abell, J. W., Steenbergh, T. A., & Boivin, M. J. (2006). Cyberporn use in the context
of religiosity. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 165–171.
∗
American Psychiatric Association. (2012). Hypersexual disorder: Proposed two-
week dimensional severity measure. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/
proposedrevisions/pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415#
Bancroft, J., & Vukadinovic, Z. (2004). Sexual addiction, sexual compulsivity, or
what? Toward a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 225–234.
∗
Brand, M., Laier, C., Pawlikowski, M., Schachtle, U., Scholer, T., & Altstotter-Gleich,
C. (2011). Watching pornographic pictures on the internet: Role of sexual
arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using internet sex
sites excessively. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Netowrking, 14, 371–377.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 06:17 24 November 2014
∗
Carnes, P. (1989). Contrary to love: Helping the sexual addict. New York: Bantam.
∗
Carnes, P., Green, B., & Carnes, S. (2010). The same yet different: Refocusing the
Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST) to reflect orientation and gender. Sexual
Addiction & Compulsivity, 17, 7–30.
∗
Carter, D. R., & Ruiz, N. J. (1996). Discriminant validity and reliability studies on the
sexual addiction scale of the disorders screening inventory. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity, 3, 332–340.
∗
Coleman, E., Miner, M., Ohlerking, F., & Raymond, N. (2001). Compulsive Sexual
Behavior Inventory: A preliminary study of reliability and validity. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 27, 325–332.
∗
Corley, A. (1999). The gay and bisexual male Sexual Addiction Screening Test (G-
SAST). Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on
Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, St. Louis, MO.
∗
Delmonico, D. L., Bubenzer, D. L., & West, J. D. (1998). Assessing sexual addiction
with the Sexual Dependency Inventory – Revised. Sexual Addiction & Compul-
sivity, 5, 179–187.
∗
Delmonico, D. L., & Carnes, P. J. (1999). Virtual sex addiction: When cybersex
becomes the drug of choice. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2, 457–463.
∗
Exner, T. M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1992). Sexual self-control
as a mediator of high risk sexual behavior in a New York City cohort of HIV+
and HIV- gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 289–406.
Garcia, F. D., & Thibaut, F. (2010). Sexual addictions. The American Journal of Drug
and Alcohol Abuse, 36, 254–260.
∗
Garos, S., & Stock, W. A. (1998). Measuring disorders of sexual frequency and
control: The Garos Sexual Behavior Index. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 5,
159–177.
Gold, S. N., & Heffner, C. L. (1998). Sexual addiction: Many conceptions, minimal
data. Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 367–381.
∗
Grubbs, J. B., Sessoms, J., Wheeler, D. M., & Volk, F. (2010). The Cyber-
Pornography Use Inventory: The development of a new assessment instrument.
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 17, 106–126.
∗
Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-perceived effects of pornography
consumption. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 614–625.
Measuring Hypersexual Behavior 77
∗
Reid, R. C., Carpenter, B. N., Hook, J. N., Garos, S., Manning, J. C., Gilliland, R.,
. . . & Fong, T. (2012). Report of findings in a DSM-5 field trial for hypersexual
disorder. Journal of Sexual Medicine (in press).
∗
Reid, R. C., Garos, S. H., & Carpenter, B. N. (2011). Reliability, validity, and psy-
chometric development of the hypersexual behavior inventory in an outpatient
sample of men. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 18, 30–51.
∗
Reid, R. C., Garos, S., & Fong, T. (2012). Psychometric development of the Hyper-
sexual Behavior Consequences Scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1(3),
115–122.
∗
Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (1993). The Multidimensional Sexuality
Questionnaire: An objective self-report measure of psychological tendencies
associated with human sexuality. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 27–55.
∗
Snell, W. E., Jr., & Papini, D. (1998). The Sexuality Scale (SS): An instrument to mea-
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 06:17 24 November 2014