Genitourinary syndrome in menopause: Impact of vaginal symptoms

Objective

To describe the impact of genitourinary syndrome symptoms on daily activities and well-being in peri- and postmenopausal women living in an urban area.

Materials and Methods

Observational, prospective, and cross-sectional research in a population of peri- and postmenopausal women living in the Lima region. A non-probabilistic sample was used. The instrument used is "The Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging" questionnaire. It consists of four domains and its internal reliability is between 0.82 and 0.93. The questions were answered using a Likert scale. High values indicate a more severe impact. Statistical procedures were performed using SPSS version 26.

Results

One thousand seventy women participated; the mean age was 54±7.5 years. The results about the activities of daily living showed that 35% of women reported regular vaginal symptoms and 14.7% major symptoms. In the emotional well-being domain, 90% had minor symptoms. In the sexual function domain, 57.6% reported minor vaginal symptoms, and in the self-concept and body image domain, 60.9% reported minor symptoms and 20.7% major symptoms. According to the global score, 60.9% reported minor discomfort, 36.3% regular discomfort, and 2.8% major discomfort. The sexually active women declared an impact of severity in terms of their daily activities and sexual function (p<0.05).

Conclusion

There is a relationship between activities of daily living, sexual function, and women with sexual activity, causing a negative impact on social life and quality of life.

Beyond Simple Mean Differences: Analysis of Sex Similarities and Differences in Academic Achievement With the Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement, Third Edition

Simple mean differences summarized in meta-analyses do not always adequately describe sex similarities and differences. We investigated sex similarities and differences in academic achievement test scores during childhood and adolescence multiple ways based on composite and subtest scores from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Third edition) norming sample. Sex differences in means were investigated across achievement domains and ability levels. Test score variance and percentages of scores at different parts of score distributions were also compared across sex. The largest and most consistent sex differences were female advantages in writing tests: Larger advantages were found in more complex writing tasks. Females also showed consistent advantages in silent reading fluency. Males demonstrated advantages in math problem solving that emerged at the average ability level. Females were more likely to be high achievers in reading fluency and written expression, whereas males were more likely to be low achievers in reading fluency and aspects of writing, and very low achievers in word recognition, word recognition fluency, and reading vocabulary. Males were more likely to be high achievers in math problem solving. Analysis that goes beyond simple mean differences reveals important sex differences regarding academic achievement, and theories should account for overall patterns of academic achievement similarities and differences.

Implications of Error Analysis Studies for Academic Interventions

We reviewed 13 studies that focused on analyzing student errors on achievement tests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third edition (KTEA-3). The intent was to determine what instructional implications could be derived from in-depth error analysis. As we reviewed these studies, several themes emerged. We explain how a careful analysis of errors is key to planning the most appropriate instructional interventions.

Error Analysis

This commentary will take an historical perspective on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA) error analysis, discussing where it started, where it is today, and where it may be headed in the future. In addition, the commentary will compare and contrast the KTEA error analysis procedures that are rooted in psychometric methodology and the process approach to error analysis which is derived primarily from cognitive neuropsychology.

Commentary

The articles presented in this Special Issue provide evidence for many statistically significant relationships among error scores obtained from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA)-3 between various groups of students with and without disabilities. The data reinforce the importance of examiners looking beyond the standard scores when analyzing results. Although the data in these articles are powerful by themselves, this commentary explores the potential advantages of considering additional information to increase the practicality of these results. Although statistical significance may provide evidential validity of the results, and the articles inform clinical practice and offer valuable leads for further research that should be pursued, the present authors question whether the data as presented provide sufficient information to determine the predictive and practical utility of these initial results. The next step, we believe, is to extend these novel approaches to data from larger, carefully defined samples of students with specific learning challenges and disabilities.