{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030110935023771792, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006339144215530904, 'mean_word_length': 5.723404255319149, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary on “Critical Flaws in the FSFI and IIEF”

This invited commentary responds to recent criticisms of two validated and widely used sexual function questionnaires, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) (Forbes, Baillie, & Schniering, 2014). We take issue with the conceptual arguments presented, selective review of published literature on both instruments, and conclusions drawn from methodologically flawed findings from an Internet-based study in a nonrepresentative group of Australian men and women. Alternative perspectives on the IIEF and FSFI are presented.