Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures - Review

Journal of Sex Research, May, 1999 by Michael W. Wiederman

Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Edited by Clive M. Davis, William L. Yarber, Robert Bauserman, George Schreer, & Sandra L. Davis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, 591 pages. Hardback, $99.95.

Reviewed by Michael W. Wiederman, Ph.D., Ball State University, Department of Psychological Science, Muncie, IN 47306.

Given the private nature of the topic, virtually all research on human sexuality is based on self-report. Even those relatively infrequent studies that include physiological measures typically also contain a self-report component (e.g., creating comparison groups based on scores generated by self-report scales). So, a compendium of previously used scales is an invaluable resource for sex researchers. Such a compendium also provides a unique opportunity to review the state of self-report measurement in the field. Accordingly, my specific comments about the handbook are followed by more general observations about the state of self-report sexuality scales that became apparent in reviewing this more-or-less representative collection of measures.

Davis and colleagues are to be commended for taking on the Herculean task of tracking down the numerous authors of sexuality scales, contacting them to invite a submission, and editing the large number of responses. Clark and Watson (1995) noted that "Scale development remains a growth industry within psychology" (p. 309). Apparently the same can be said within sexuality research. The current handbook, containing more than 200 scales, is the successor to Davis, Yarber, and Davis (1988), which contained approximately 100 measures. The growth of the area can also be seen in the fact that the current volume is produced by a major publisher, whereas the first edition was self-published by the editors.

Despite the large number of entries in the current volume, the editors point out that some well-known scales are not included because the respective authors did not respond with a contribution or further information. In some such cases the editors provide a very brief description of someone else's scale along with the primary reference. Most of the time, however, the initial creator of the measure provided the information. Typically, the entire scale is reproduced, although many times only sample items are given due to copyright restrictions.

The scales are presented by topic, with the table of contents serving as a sort of subject index. In other words, the table of contents contains an alphabetical listing of topics in sexuality and the relevant scales are listed under each topical heading. It is apparent that contributors were given a set of headings to use (Description, Response Mode and Timing, Scoring, Reliability, Validity, Other Information, and References), which makes for relatively consistent coverage across scales. However, the amount of information provided under each heading varies considerably across entries, in many cases apparently due to a lack of such information (e.g., reliability and validity).

Soliciting contributions from scale creators makes good sense. Who would know better about the development and validation of each scale? Unfortunately, however, these same authors probably have a vested interest in presenting their creations in the best possible light. It is difficult to judge, then, whether all relevant information is being covered. There is a high probability that these are not entirely objective evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of each scale.

There were some editorial decisions that left me confused. Some scales survived the decade lapse between editions despite an apparent lack of use by researchers. Also, inclusion of some of the scales in the earlier edition made sense given the relatively smaller number of sexuality-related scales. In this current handbook, however, which weighs in at nearly 600 pages, inclusion of some scales that are only tangentially related to sexuality is questionable, especially when only a very limited subset of such measures is covered. For example, although I do not question that body image is a potentially important aspect of women's sexuality (e.g., see Daniluk, 1998; Wiederman & Hurst, 1998), I wonder why only a single body image measure was included in the handbook. Indeed, there is a recent compendium (Allison, 1995) that includes the numerous body image measures that have been developed and widely used among those who study body image extensively (note that the measure included in the current handbook is not even mentioned in Allison, 1995). Similarly, only one measure of gender roles is included in the current handbook, although there are previous volumes comprised primarily of such measures (e.g., Beere, 1990a, 1990b).

Someone could defend the editorial decision to include these single examples of body image and gender role measures with the notion that "some is better than none." However, by including such a limited number of these measures, without accompanying review or critique of other such scales, the inexperienced reader may come away with the sense that these are the only or the best measures of body image and gender roles, when in reality they are quite obscure measures of these constructs. In my opinion, it would have been better to limit the current handbook to measures more centrally related to sexuality, especially given the length of the current book.