Table 4.
Internal validity of the 2-cluster solution
Symptoms scale | Sample 1 (n = 1,581) | Sample 2 (n = 1,318) | ||||||
Cluster 1 (non-CSBD, n = 1,421) M (SD) or % |
Cluster 2 (CSBD, n = 160) M (SD) or % |
Inferential statistic | Effect size | Cluster 1 (non-CSBD, n = 1,215) M (SD) or % |
Cluster 2 (CSBD, n = 103) M (SD) or % |
Inferential statistic | Effect size | |
CSBD symptoms (composite index) a | ||||||||
Loss of control | −0.16 (0.43) | 1.42 (0.80) | t = −39.18*** | d = 2.46 | −0.15 (0.43) | 1.76 (0.88) | t = −38.25*** | d = 2.75 |
Neglect | −0.17 (0.51) | 1.56 (0.87) | t = −37.46*** | d = 2.42 | −0.15 (0.46) | 1.83 (1.27) | t = −33.97*** | d = 2.07 |
Unable to stop | −0.13 (0.57) | 1.16 (0.96) | t = −25.07*** | d = 1.63 | −0.12 (0.61) | 1.61 (0.89) | t = −26.40*** | d = 2.26 |
Continued engagement despite interference | −0.11 (0.34) | 1.06 (0.73) | t = −34.99*** | d = 2.05 | −0.11 (0.42) | 1.38 (0.77) | t = −31.61*** | d = 2.40 |
Coping | −0.12 (0.62) | 1.14 (0.82) | t = −23.71*** | d = 1.73 | −0.10 (0.67) | 1.22 (0.86) | t = −18.87*** | d = 1.71 |
Preoccupation, salience, and self-perceived severity | −0.13 (0.46) | 1.22 (0.68) | t = −33.04*** | d = 2.32 | −0.12 (.49) | 1.41 (0.65) | t = −29.50*** | d = 2.65 |
Prevalence of CSBD according to different cut-offs | ||||||||
Participants above HBI cut-off score (HBI ≥53)b | 0.7% | 58.3% | χ2 = −759.32*** | V = 0.70 | 0.7% | 63.1% | χ2 = −707.74*** | V = 0.73 |
Participants above SCS cut-off score (SCS ≥2 4)c | 1.5% | 59.0% | χ2 = −690.85*** | V = 0.66 | 1.2% | 43.7% | χ2 = −393.86*** | V = 0.54 |
Participants above SAST cut-off score (SAST >13)d | 0.1% | 30.1% | χ2 = −426.50*** | V = 0.52 | 2.6% | 52.4% | χ2 = −385.97*** | V = 0.54 |
Note. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
Cluster means are expressed as z-scores.
Parsons, Bimbi, and Halkitis (2001) proposed that values ≥24 on the SCS may indicate severe sexual compulsivity like symptoms.