OBJECTIVES: To develop Patient and Partner versions of a psychometrically sound questionnaire, the EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction), to assess satisfaction with medical treatments for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: Treatment satisfaction differs from treatment efficacy as it focuses on a person's subjective evaluation of treatment received. Twenty-nine items representing the domain of treatment satisfaction for men and 20 representing partner satisfaction were generated. Two independent samples of 28 and 29 couples completed all items at two points in time. Spearman rank-order correlations were derived to assess test-retest reliability and couple coefficients of validity. Internal consistency coefficients were calculated for both Patient and Partner versions and a content validity panel was used to analyze content validity. RESULTS: Only items that met all the following criteria were selected to comprise the final questionnaires: (a) range of response four or more out of five; (b) test-retest reliability greater than 0.70; (c) ratings by at least 70% of the content validity panel as belonging in and being important for the domain; and (d) significant correlation between the subjects' and partners' responses. Eleven patient items met criteria and formed the Patient EDITS; five partner items met criteria and formed the Partner EDITS. Scores on the two inventories were normally distributed with internal consistencies of 0.90 and 0.76, respectively. Test-retest reliability for the Patient EDITS was 0.98; for the Partner EDITS, it was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability and validity were well established, enabling the EDITSs to be used to assess satisfaction with treatment modalities for erectile dysfunction and to explore the impact of patient and partner satisfaction on treatment continuation.
OBJECTIVES: To develop Patient and Partner versions of a psychometrically sound questionnaire, the EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction), to assess satisfaction with medical treatments for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: Treatment satisfaction differs from treatment efficacy as it focuses on a person's subjective evaluation of treatment received. Twenty-nine items representing the domain of treatment satisfaction for men and 20 representing partner satisfaction were generated. Two independent samples of 28 and 29 couples completed all items at two points in time. Spearman rank-order correlations were derived to assess test-retest reliability and couple coefficients of validity. Internal consistency coefficients were calculated for both Patient and Partner versions and a content validity panel was used to analyze content validity. RESULTS: Only items that met all the following criteria were selected to comprise the final questionnaires: (a) range of response four or more out of five; (b) test-retest reliability greater than 0.70; (c) ratings by at least 70% of the content validity panel as belonging in and being important for the domain; and (d) significant correlation between the subjects' and partners' responses. Eleven patient items met criteria and formed the Patient EDITS; five partner items met criteria and formed the Partner EDITS. Scores on the two inventories were normally distributed with internal consistencies of 0.90 and 0.76, respectively. Test-retest reliability for the Patient EDITS was 0.98; for the Partner EDITS, it was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability and validity were well established, enabling the EDITSs to be used to assess satisfaction with treatment modalities for erectile dysfunction and to explore the impact of patient and partner satisfaction on treatment continuation.
Authors: F Pisano; M Falcone; A Abbona; M Oderda; F Soria; F Peraldo; F Marson; M Barale; C Fiorito; A Gurioli; B Frea; P Gontero Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Joseph C Cappelleri; Stanley E Althof; Michael P O'Leary; Sidney Glina; Rosie King; Vera J Stecher; Martin Carlsson; Richard L Siegel Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A Matthew; N Lutzky-Cohen; L Jamnicky; K Currie; A Gentile; D Santa Mina; N Fleshner; A Finelli; R Hamilton; G Kulkarni; M Jewett; A Zlotta; J Trachtenberg; Z Yang; D Elterman Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Andrea Grauvogl; Silvia M A A Evers; Katy van den Hoek; Evert van der Veen; Anja Franke; Jacques J D M van Lankveld Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-12-13 Impact factor: 3.295