Validation of the Sexual Desire Inventory for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer adults.

Abstract

The Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI; Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996) is one of the most popular scales used to measure dyadic and solitary sexual desire. Research on sexual desire has primarily focused on heterosexual cisgender experiences, and the SDI has not been validated in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or queer (LGBTQ) populations. To address the dearth of research using the SDI on LGBTQ populations, the primary aim of this study was to examine the internal structure of the SDI by examining and comparing the fit of the original 2-factor structure suggested by Spector et al. (1996) with a 3-factor structure found by Moyano, Vallejo-Medina, & Sierra, (2017) in a sample of LGBTQ adults. The secondary aim of this study was to provide convergent evidence of validity for SDI scores. Findings provide evidence for a 3-factor structure solution of the SDI: (1) dyadic sexual desire for partner, (2) solitary sexual desire, and (3) dyadic sexual desire for attractive other. These findings are consistent with the structure reported by Moyano and colleagues (2017). Convergent validity with the SDI and the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Desire (Apt & Hurlbert, 1992) and Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1995) was also established. Results provide new information on the appropriateness of a 3-factor structure for using the SDI in an adult LGBTQ sample. The need for additional research on the SDI is discussed. Public Significance StatementSexual desire is significantly related to sexual satisfaction and overall well-being yet has been seldom studied in the LGBTQ population. The validation of the Sexual Desire Inventory in the LGBTQ population is important for future research to have psychometric strength in examining sexual desire in sexually diverse samples.

A Large-Scale Test of the Replicability and Generalizability of Survey Measures in Close Relationship and Sexuality Science

“…The two-factor structure of the SDI-2 was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis using the Spanish version in a sample of 608 Spanish individuals (Ortega, Zubeidat, & Sierra, 2006). There is support in the literature that 3-factors (partner focused desire, general sexual desire for an attractive person, solitary sexual desire) better capture the dimensions of the SDI-2 (e.g., , Mark, Toland, Rosenkrantz, Brown, & Hong, 2018.…”

“…The 3-factor solution of the SDI-I has also been investigated in a Spanish sample with exploratory (n =3417) and confirmatory (n = 677) factor analyses , and with confirmatory factor analysis in a LGBTQ* sample (n = 385; Mark et al, 2018).…”

Contribution of sexual desire and motives to the compulsive use of cybersex

“…The SDI-2 has good psychometric qualities with good internal consistency of the two factors (.86 and .96, respectively;Spector et al, 1996). Previous studies reported stable psychometric characteristics across samples with different languages and sexual orientations, such as lesbians and gay males (Dosch, Rochat, Ghisletta, Favez, & Van der Linden, 2016;Mark et al, 2018).…”

“…The SDI-2 is used to assess sexual desire, defined as interest in sexual behavior (Spector et al, 1996). It is one of the most frequently used instruments for the assessment of sexual desire (Mark et al, 2018). It consists of 14 items measuring the intensity and importance of desire on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from no desire to strong desire or from not at all important to extremely important.…”

“…Sexual desire is a driving component of sexual fantasy life and activity (Levine, 2003;Pfaus, 2009). Moderate associations have been found between sexual desire and cybersex enhancement motives (Commission of the European Communities, 2002;Franc et al, 2018;Mark, Toland, Rosenkrantz, Brown, & Hong, 2018;Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996), congruent with the enhancing and arousing effects of cybersex (Beutel et al, 2017;Reid, Li, Gilliland, Stein, & Fong, 2011). A recent study found weaker correlations between cybersex coping motives and sexual desire, and no association between solitary sexual desire and cybersex social motives (Franc et al, 2018).…”