Psychometric Evaluation of the Abbreviated Hungarian Faking Orgasm Scale for Women

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2024 Dec 27

PMID 39726612

Authors

Edit Csanyi

Julia Basler

Tamas Bereczkei

Norbert Mesko

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The Faking Orgasm Scale for Women (FOS) was developed to explore the motivations behind women's self-reported instances of faking orgasm during oral sex and sexual intercourse. In a recent study, a Hungarian version of the FOS was developed, confirming the same factor structure as the original American version, consisting of four factors across two subscales.

Methods: The current study aimed to develop and validate a brief Hungarian FOS. Factor analysis was conducted with data from 2220 women (mean age = 24.4, SD = 7.48 years). The Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated that retaining four-four scales, each comprising of three items was the optimal solution for the revised shorter version. Validation involved 768 women (mean age = 22.6, SD = 4.54 years) completing a questionnaire package, including the Hungarian Short Form of Reasons for Having Sex Questionnaire (YSEX?-HSF) and Women's Sexual Working Models Scale (WSWMS).

Results: The results suggest that the Hungarian 24-item FOS, with its four scales within each of the two sub-scales, provides a reliable and valid measurement of motives for faking orgasm in women. The different reasons behind faking orgasm are associated with different sexual working patterns and sexual motivations. Furthermore, women who reported faking orgasms reported significantly higher levels of sexual distancing and perceived lower care from their partners compared to women who reported not faking orgasms. Women who reported faking orgasm were also more likely to engage in sexual activities to attain personal goals and cope with emotional stress.

Discussion: The FOS-24 offers both practitioners and researchers a concise and useful instrument for the assessment of faking orgasms.

References

McNulty J, Wenner C, Fisher T . Longitudinal Associations Among Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Frequency of Sex in Early Marriage. Arch Sex Behav. 2014; 45(1):85-97. PMC: 4472635. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6. View

Babyak M, Green S . Confirmatory factor analysis: an introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers. Psychosom Med. 2010; 72(6):587-97. DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181de3f8a. View

Dawood K, Kirk K, Bailey J, Andrews P, Martin N . Genetic and environmental influences on the frequency of orgasm in women. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2005; 8(1):27-33. DOI: 10.1375/1832427053435427. View

Elmerstig E, Wijma B, Bertero C . Why do young women continue to have sexual intercourse despite pain?. J Adolesc Health. 2008; 43(4):357-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.02.011. View

Buss D, Shackelford T . From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997; 72(2):346-61. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.72.2.346. View

SAUCIER G . Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. J Pers Assess. 1994; 63(3):506-16. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8. View

Dunn T, Baguley T, Brunsden V . From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014; 105(3):399-412. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12046. View

Rolstad S, Adler J, Ryden A . Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2011; 14(8):1101-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003. View

Wallen K . Commentary on Puts' (2006) review of The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Arch Sex Behav. 2006; 35(6):633-6. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-006-9100-0. View

10.

Puts D, Dawood K, Welling L . Why women have orgasms: an evolutionary analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2012; 41(5):1127-43. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-012-9967-x. View

11.

Bode A, Kowal M, Cannas Aghedu F, Kavanagh P . Romantic Love and Sexual Frequency: Challenging Beliefs. J Sex Marital Ther. 2024; 50(7):894-905. DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2024.2394670. View

12.

Muehlenhard C, Shippee S . Men's and women's reports of pretending orgasm. J Sex Res. 2009; 47(6):552-67. DOI: 10.1080/00224490903171794. View

13.

Weitkamp K, Wehrli F . Women's Experiences of Different Types of Orgasms-A Call for Pleasure Literacy?. Int J Sex Health. 2024; 35(2):193-208. PMC: 10903554. DOI: 10.1080/19317611.2023.2182861. View

14.

Cooper E, Fenigstein A, Fauber R . The faking orgasm scale for women: psychometric properties. Arch Sex Behav. 2013; 43(3):423-35. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-013-0212-z. View

15.

Mark K, Herbenick D, Fortenberry D, Sanders S, Reece M . The object of sexual desire: examining the "what" in "what do you desire?". J Sex Med. 2014; 11(11):2709-19. DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12683. View

16.

Genazzani A, Gambacciani M, Simoncini T . Menopause and aging, quality of life and sexuality. Climacteric. 2007; 10(2):88-96. DOI: 10.1080/13697130701297760. View

17.

Fahs B, Frank E . Notes from the back room: gender, power, and (In)visibility in women's experiences of masturbation. J Sex Res. 2013; 51(3):241-52. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2012.745474. View

18.

Meston C, Levin R, Sipski M, Hull E, Heiman J . Women's orgasm. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2006; 15:173-257. View

19.

Birnbaum G, Reis H, Mizrahi M, Kanat-Maymon Y, Sass O, Granovski-Milner C . Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016; 111(4):530-46. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000069. View

20.

Prause N, Kuang L, Lee P, Miller G . Clitorally Stimulated Orgasms Are Associated With Better Control of Sexual Desire, and Not Associated With Depression or Anxiety, Compared With Vaginally Stimulated Orgasms. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(11):1676-1685. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.08.014. View