Journal article
M.K. Forbes
Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51(5), 2014, pp. 498-502
Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51(5), 2014, pp. 498-502
DOI
PubMed
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Forbes, M. K. (2014). Response to Rosen et al. (2014) "Commentary on Critical Flaws in the FSFI and IIEF" Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 498–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.895795
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Forbes, M.K. “Response to Rosen Et Al. (2014) &Quot;Commentary on Critical Flaws in the FSFI and IIEF&Quot;” Journal of Sex Research 51, no. 5 (2014): 498–502.
MLA
Click to copy
Forbes, M. K. “Response to Rosen Et Al. (2014) &Quot;Commentary on Critical Flaws in the FSFI and IIEF&Quot;” Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51, no. 5, 2014, pp. 498–502, doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.895795.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{forbes2014a,
title = {Response to Rosen et al. (2014) "Commentary on Critical Flaws in the FSFI and IIEF"},
year = {2014},
issue = {5},
journal = {Journal of Sex Research},
pages = {498-502},
volume = {51},
doi = {10.1080/00224499.2014.895795},
author = {Forbes, M.K.}
}
Abstract
This is a response to the commentary by Rosen, Revicki, and Sand ( 2014 ) on our original article titled "Critical Flaws in the Female Sexual Function Index and the International Index of Erectile Function" (Forbes, Baillie, & Schniering, 2014 ). We address his criticisms and clarify our points further using existing research. We conclude that there are a number of evident limitations to these popular measures, and suggest that researchers and clinicians familiarize themselves with the aim and scope of each measure before use.
