Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates the Orgasm Rating Scale in solitary masturbation, suggesting a need for quality assessments in sexual health.
Introduction Despite the clinical relevance of solitary masturbation for sexual well-being, research has overlooked the subjective quality of the orgasm experience during this activity. This study adapted and validated the Orgasm Rating Scale (ORS) for solitary masturbation in a Portuguese sample, evaluating its internal structure, reliability, and its relationship with other variables. Methods A sample of 1178 Portuguese participants (72.5% women, M age = 35.4) completed the ORS, a sociodemographic questionnaire, and measures of sexual functioning, satisfaction, pleasure, and distress. A follow-up ( N = 498) assessed the scale’s reliability over time. Results Confirmatory factor analysis supported a four-factor structure (Affective, Sensory, Intimacy, and Rewards dimensions) with 24 items, with fit indices indicating acceptable model fit. The scale and its dimensions demonstrated high internal consistency. Validity was supported by the scale’s positive associations with sexual satisfaction and pleasure, and negative correlations with sexual distress. Additionally, the scale discriminated between individuals with and without orgasm difficulties in the affective and intimacy dimensions. Conclusions The ORS-Pt is a psychometrically sound and reliable tool for assessing the subjective orgasm experience in solitary masturbation, providing a valuable resource for describing orgasm and enabling comparative research between solitary and partnered sexual contexts. Policy Implications : This study advocates for shifting sexual health monitoring from frequency-based metrics to subjective quality assessments. Validating the ORS-Pt stimulates research that refines the language used to describe orgasm, ultimately informing sexual education programs that prioritize sexual literacy, pleasure, and well-being over purely quantitative outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nóbrega et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: