Cited by 128Sexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGambling Behavior and TreatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studies

Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Montgomery-Graham, Stephanie·2017·Sexual Medicine Reviews

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Despite the rejection of hypersexual disorder (HD) as a new diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), clinical and research interest in HD continues. AIM: To systematically review the existing scientific literature on the conceptualization and assessment of HD and out-of-control sexual behavior. METHODS: Studies were identified from PsychInfo, PubMed, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Scholar's Portal using an exhaustive list of key terms. Of 299 total articles identified and screened, 252 were excluded, and 47 are included in this review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To review two categories of articles: HD conceptualization and HD psychometric assessment. RESULTS: First, results of the review of theoretical conceptualizations of HD reflected a large proportion of the peer-reviewed literature devoted to discussing conceptualizations of HD without reaching consensus. Second, results of the review of HD psychometric assessments were analyzed using Hunsley and Mash's (2008) criteria to evaluate psychometric adequacy of evidence-based assessment measurements. The six most researched measurements of HD were evaluated, including the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory, the Sexual Compulsivity Scale, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised, and the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory. Psychometric properties of the scales are reviewed, evaluated, and discussed. CONCLUSION: The Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the measurement proposed for the clinical screening of HD by the DSM-5 workgroup, currently has the strongest psychometric support. Future research and clinical directions are discussed in light of findings after the literature review and synthesis. Montgomery-Graham S. Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:146-162.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.11.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 86 · Cited by 128

Authors
Montgomery-Graham, S.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Montgomery-Graham, Stephanie
Venue
Sexual Medicine Reviews
Published
2017-04
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
146-162
ISSN
  • 2050-0513 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-0521
OpenAlex
W2560907291
Cited by
128
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexual Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
hypersexual disorder, conceptualization, psychometric assessment, DSM-5, sexual addiction, compulsive sexual behavior
MeSH terms
Compulsive Behavior, Humans, Paraphilic Disorders, Sexual Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review