Lo(u)st in Therapy: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Therapists’ Attitude toward Sexual and Erotic Feelings Scale (TASEF)

Figures & data

Figure 1. EGA results of the initial and final 19-item version of the TASEF.

Note: Red – gratification; blue – fear; green – threat; orange – aversion.

Enhanced Gaussian Graphical Model (EGA) results of the initial and final 19-item version of the TASEF. The figure shows lines connecting various items, with different line thicknesses representing the strength of the associations. Green lines indicate positive associations, while red lines indicate negative associations. Items are grouped by different colors, representing distinct factors.

Figure 2. Item stability of the 19-item TASEF. Stability below 75% is poor.

Note: Red – gratification; blue – fear; green – threat; orange – aversion.

Item stability analysis of the 19-item TASEF. The figure illustrates the stability of each item, with stability below 75% considered poor. Items are color-coded to represent different factors. Notably, all items demonstrated satisfactory stability.

Figure 3. The final CFA of the 19-item TASEF.

Note: Ft1 – gratification; Ft2 – aversion; Ft3 – fear; Ft4 – threat.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results for the final 19-item TASEF. The figure depicts the strength of associations between latent factors and items, represented by lines of varying thickness. Green lines indicate positive associations, while red lines indicate negative associations.

Table 1. Network loadings of the 19-item TASEF (Study 1)

	Items	Gratification	Fear	Aversion	Threat
29	I enjoy being attractive to my patients	0.40
9	I enjoy the thought that I am attractive in the eyes of some of my patients	0.38
18	Listening to patients describe sexual experiences may sometimes make me physically aroused	0.33
30	I sometimes experience sexual tension in response to various content raised by my patients	0.31
1	It is important to me to be seen as attractive in the eyes of some of my patients	0.30
24	I feel curious to hear about the sexual experiences of my patients	0.22
13	I would feel excitement if a patient would have sexual or romantic feelings toward me	0.17
2	I’m scared a patient will fall in love with me		0.33
3	I’m scared I will fall in love with a patient		0.29
7	The idea of patients having sexual fantasies about me is terrifying for me		0.28
27	It is terrifying for me when I have sexual fantasies about a patient		0.26
28	I feel uncomfortable when patients flatter me about my looks		0.23
26	I am afraid that patients will attempt to seduce me		0.18
11	I experience feelings of disgust when patients describe their sexual experiences			0.44
12	With some patients, I feel embarrassment to hear them describe sexual acts			0.37
33	Some patients’ descriptions of their sexual experiences can make me feel extremely uncomfortable			0.34
15	If I were to sense that a patient had developed sexual or romantic feelings toward me, it would compromise the therapy				0.37
32	If I were to sense sexual attraction between myself and a patient, I would terminate the therapy				0.32
16	If I would experience sexual or romantic feelings toward a patient, I would feel unprofessional as a therapist.				0.32

Note. General effect size guidelines for network loadings are 0.15 for small, 0.25 for moderate, and 0.35 for large.

Figure 4. Factor-level Multi-trait Multimethod approach for convergence and discriminant validity.

Factor-level Multi-trait Multimethod (MTMM) approach for assessing convergence and discriminant validity of the TASEF. Each panel represents correlations with one of the TASEF clusters. The y-axis indicates the strength of the correlation.

Figure 5. Item-level Multi-trait Multimethod approach for convergence and discriminant validity.

Item-level Multi-trait Multimethod (MTMM) approach for evaluating convergence and discriminant validity of the TASEF. Each panel represents correlations between scales' items and a specific TASEF cluster. The y-axis indicates the strength of the correlation between the items and the corresponding TASEF factor.

Table 2. Within-factor correlation, convergence, and discriminant scores of erotic transference clusters.

	Items	Within r	Convergence	Discriminant	Convergence / Discriminant
Gratification Erotic Transference	7	.59	.10	.09	1.11
Fear Erotic Transference	6	.49	.28	.13	2.15
Aversion Erotic Transference	3	.76	.21	.10	2.10
Threat Erotic Transference	3	.51	.20	.08	2.50

Note. Within r = Within-factor correlation; Convergence = average between-cluster correlation; Discriminant = average Correlation to unrelated factors.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, statistics, and effect sizes for the differences in erotic transference by gender, family status, sexual orientation, sex therapist, and religiosity.

	Men		Women
	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	Hedges’s g (95% CI)
Gratification	2.67	0.83	2.48	0.79	1.71 (88.23)	0.24 (–0.03, 0.51)
Fear	2.25	0.76	2.34	0.78	−0.87 (91.99)	−0.12 (–0.38, 0.15)
Aversion	2.04	1.06	2.52	1.07	−3.34 (91.74) ***	−0.45 (–0.72, −0.18)
Threat	2.49	1.05	2.65	0.99	−1.09 (84.56)	−0.16 (–0.43, 0.11)
	Married		Unmarried
	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	Hedges’s g (95% CI)
Gratification	2.55	0.81	2.43	0.79	−1.32 (185.20)	−0.15 (–0.37, 0.07)
Fear	2.34	0.78	2.30	0.77	−0.44 (183.27)	−0.05 (–0.27, 0.17)
Aversion	2.45	1.1	2.41	1.05	−0.29 (189.27)	−0.03 (–0.26, 0.19)
Threat	2.62	1.01	2.64	0.99	0.18 (186.04)	0.02 (–0.20, 0.24)
	Heterosexual		Non-Heterosexual
	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	Hedges’s g (95% CI)
Gratification	2.47	0.80	2.75	0.82	2.17 (58.26)*	0.35 (0.04, 0.65)
Fear	2.32	0.78	2.38	0.75	0.55 (60.49)	0.08 (–0.22, 0.39)
Aversion	2.45	1.09	2.35	0.99	−0.63 (62.31)	−0.09 (–0.40, 0.21)
Threat	2.63	1.01	2.55	0.96	−0.53 (61.19)	−0.08 (–0.38, 0.23)
	Sex therapists		Other
	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	Hedges’s g (95% CI)
Gratification	2.80	0.70	2.45	0.81	−3.61 (107.84)***	−0.43 (–0.70, −0.17)
Fear	2.15	0.61	2.36	0.80	2.52 (118.65)*	0.28 (0.02, 0.54)
Aversion	2.31	1.03	2.46	1.09	1.11 (99.12)	0.14 (–0.12, 0.41)
Threat	2.41	0.96	2.67	1.01	2.01 (98.73)*	0.26 (0.01, 0.52)
	Secular		Religious
	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	Hedges’s g (95% CI)
Gratification	2.49	0.81	2.60	0.74	1.04 (88.86)	0.13 (–0.13, 0.41)
Fear	2.30	0.74	2.49	0.94	1.49 (74.33)	0.24 (–0.03, 0.52)
Aversion	2.40	1.06	2.63	1.21	1.33 (72.80)	0.21 (–0.07, 0.49)
Threat	2.60	0.97	2.79	1.18	1.20 (72.60)	0.19 (–0.08, 0.47)

Note. t = Welch’s independent samples t-test.

* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Correlations between TASEF clusters and background measures.

	Age	Experience	Income	Health
Gratification	−0.03 (–0.14, .07)	−0.00 (–0.10, .09)	.15 (.05, .25)**	.04 (–0.06, .14)
Fear	−0.31 (–0.40, −0.21)***	−0.24 (–0.33, −0.15)***	−0.26 (–0.35, −0.17)***	−0.10 (–0.20, .01)
Aversion	−0.17 (–0.27, −0.07)**	−0.14 (–0.23, −0.04)**	−0.14 (–0.24, −0.04)**	−0.06 (–0.16, .04)
Threat	.02 (–0.09, .12)	−0.07 (–0.17, .03)	−0.15 (–0.25, −0.05)**	−0.08 (–0.17, .02)

Note. Values in parenthesis are 95% confidence for Pearson’s correlation.

* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Data sharing statement

The data and materials used in the research can be available upon request.