Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32644937›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2020

Validation of a Brief Pornography Screen across multiple samples.

Shane W Kraus, Mateusz Gola, Joshua B Grubbs, Ewelina Kowalewska, Rani A Hoff, Michał Lew-Starowicz, Steve Martino, Steven D Shirk, Marc N Potenza

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Motivational Pathways Diverge Between Frequent and Problematic Pornography Use.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Shane W Kraus1Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0404-9480
Mateusz Gola2Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Joshua B Grubbs4Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA.
Ewelina Kowalewska5Department of Psychiatry, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Rani A Hoff6Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Michał Lew-Starowicz5Department of Psychiatry, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Steve Martino6Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Steven D Shirk8VISN 1 New England MIRECC, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
Marc N Potenza6Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsTo address current gaps around screening for problematic pornography use (PPU), we initially developed and tested a six-item Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) that asked about PPU in the past six months. METHODS AND

participantsWe recruited five independent samples from the U.S. and Poland to evaluate the psychometric properties of the BPS. In Study 1, we evaluated the factor structure, reliability, and elements of validity using a sample of 224 U.S. veterans. One item from the BPS was dropped in Study 1 due to low item endorsement. In Studies 2 and 3, we further investigated the five-item the factor structure of the BPS and evaluated its reliability and validity in two national U.S. representative samples (N = 1,466, N = 1,063, respectively). In Study 4, we confirmed the factor structure and evaluated its validity and reliability using a sample of 703 Polish adults. In Study 5, we calculated the suggested cut-off score for the screen using a sample of 105 male patients seeking treatment for compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD).

resultsFindings from a principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported a one-factor solution which yielded high internal consistency (α = 0.89-0.90), and analyses further supported elements of construct, convergent, criterion, and discriminant validity of the newly developed screen. Results from a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve suggested a cut-off score of four or higher for detecting possible PPU.

conclusionsThe BPS appears to be psychometrically sound, short, and easy to use in various settings with high potential for use in populations across international jurisdictions.

Indexed as

EroticaSexual BehaviorAdultAgedCompulsive BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedParaphilic DisordersPolandPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32644937
PMCPMC8939429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.