1987The Journal of UrologyRequires access

Psychometric Differentiation of Psychogenic and Organic Erectile Disorders

John P. Hatch, Augustin M. de la Pena, Johnnie G. Fisher

Open publisher page 18 citations

Abstract

A study was conducted to assess the discriminant validity of patient responses to a questionnaire in distinguishing between organic and psychogenic erectile dysfunction. A total of 56 urologist-referred veterans slept for 3 nights in a sleep laboratory for nocturnal penile tumescence recording. Based on nocturnal penile tumescence results 48 patients were assigned to an organic group and the remaining 8 were assigned to a psychogenic group. A discriminant function analysis of questionnaire responses yielded a highly significant discriminant function [chi-square (19) equals 63.88, p less than 10(-6)], and all 56 patients were classified correctly into the nocturnal penile tumescence-defined organic and psychogenic groups. It was concluded that verbally reported data contain diagnostically meaningful information and that such information can compare favorably with information collected through standard laboratory-based nocturnal penile tumescence techniques.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A study was conducted to assess the discriminant validity of patient responses to a questionnaire in distinguishing between organic and psychogenic erectile dysfunction. A total of 56 urologist-referred veterans slept for 3 nights in a sleep laboratory for nocturnal penile tumescence recording. Based on nocturnal penile tumescence results 48 patients were assigned to an organic group and the remaining 8 were assigned to a psychogenic group. A discriminant function analysis of questionnaire responses yielded a highly significant discriminant function [chi-square (19) equals 63.88, p less than 10(-6)], and all 56 patients were classified correctly into the nocturnal penile tumescence-defined organic and psychogenic groups. It was concluded that verbally reported data contain diagnostically meaningful information and that such information can compare favorably with information collected through standard laboratory-based nocturnal penile tumescence techniques.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A study was conducted to assess the discriminant validity of patient responses to a questionnaire in distinguishing between organic and psychogenic erectile dysfunction. A total of 56 urologist-referred veterans slept for 3 nights in a sleep laboratory for nocturnal penile tumescence recording. Based on nocturnal penile tumescence results 48 patients were assigned to an organic group and the remaining 8 were assigned to a psychogenic group. A discriminant function analysis of questionnaire responses yielded a highly significant discriminant function [chi-square (19) equals 63.88, p less than 10(-6)], and all 56 patients were classified correctly into the nocturnal penile tumescence-defined organic and psychogenic groups. It was concluded that verbally reported data contain diagnostically meaningful information and that such information can compare favorably with information collected through standard laboratory-based nocturnal penile tumescence techniques.

Key concepts: Psychogenic disease, Medicine, Erectile dysfunction, Clinical psychology, Psychiatry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Psychometric Differentiation of Psychogenic and Organic Erectile Disorders — Research Paper | ScholarLens