AIMS: To evaluate validity and responsiveness of PFDI and PFIQ short forms across four multi-center studies and develop conversion formulas between short and long versions. METHODS: 1,006 participants in four prospective studies of pelvic floor disorders completed long versions of the PFDI, PFIQ, and SF-36 (or SF-12) at baseline and 3 and 12 months after treatment. Responses were used to calculate scores for the short versions. We calculated correlations between scale versions using Pearson's correlation coefficient and compared their relative responsiveness using the standardized response mean. RESULTS: PFDI and PFIQ short form scale scores demonstrated excellent correlations with long versions and similar responsiveness. Responsiveness was good to excellent for PFDI-20 urinary and prolapse scales, moderate for PFDI-20 colorectal scale and each of the PFIQ-7 scales, and poor for SF-36 (or SF-12) summary scores. Conversion formulas demonstrated excellent goodness of fit. CONCLUSIONS: The long and short forms of the PFDI and PFIQ correlate well and have similar overall responsiveness in participants from four different prospective multicenter studies consisting of diverse patient populations with a broad range of pelvic floor disorders. The short forms provide a reliable and valid alternative in situations where reduced response burden is desired.
AIMS: To evaluate validity and responsiveness of PFDI and PFIQ short forms across four multi-center studies and develop conversion formulas between short and long versions. METHODS: 1,006 participants in four prospective studies of pelvic floor disorders completed long versions of the PFDI, PFIQ, and SF-36 (or SF-12) at baseline and 3 and 12 months after treatment. Responses were used to calculate scores for the short versions. We calculated correlations between scale versions using Pearson's correlation coefficient and compared their relative responsiveness using the standardized response mean. RESULTS: PFDI and PFIQ short form scale scores demonstrated excellent correlations with long versions and similar responsiveness. Responsiveness was good to excellent for PFDI-20 urinary and prolapse scales, moderate for PFDI-20 colorectal scale and each of the PFIQ-7 scales, and poor for SF-36 (or SF-12) summary scores. Conversion formulas demonstrated excellent goodness of fit. CONCLUSIONS: The long and short forms of the PFDI and PFIQ correlate well and have similar overall responsiveness in participants from four different prospective multicenter studies consisting of diverse patient populations with a broad range of pelvic floor disorders. The short forms provide a reliable and valid alternative in situations where reduced response burden is desired.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Patricia A Wren; Nancy K Janz; Linda Brubaker; Mary Pat Fitzgerald; Anne M Weber; Frankie B LaPorte; John T Wei Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: T van der Molen; D S Postma; A J Schreurs; H E Bosveld; M R Sears; B Meyboom de Jong Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Patricia S Goode; Kathryn L Burgio; Julie L Locher; David L Roth; Mary G Umlauf; Holly E Richter; R Edward Varner; L Keith Lloyd Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-07-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cindy L Amundsen; Margaret E Helmuth; Abigail R Smith; John O L DeLancey; Catherine S Bradley; Kathryn E Flynn; Kimberly S Kenton; H Henry Lai; David Cella; James W Griffith; Victor P Andreev; J Eric Jelovsek; Alice B Liu; Ziya Kirkali; Claire C Yang Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Catherine J Teig; Margreth Grotle; Malcolm J Bond; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Marie A Ellström Engh; Milada S Cvancarova; Møyfrid Kjøllesdal; Angelita Martini Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kari Bo; Helena C Frawley; Bernard T Haylen; Yoram Abramov; Fernando G Almeida; Bary Berghmans; Maria Bortolini; Chantale Dumoulin; Mario Gomes; Doreen McClurg; Jane Meijlink; Elizabeth Shelly; Emanuel Trabuco; Carolina Walker; Amanda Wells Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anne P Cameron; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Abigail R Smith; Brian T Helfand; John L Gore; J Quentin Clemens; Claire C Yang; Nazema Y Siddiqui; H Henry Lai; James W Griffith; Victor P Andreev; Gang Liu; Kevin Weinfurt; Cindy L Amundsen; Catherine S Bradley; John W Kusek; Ziya Kirkali Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tori Nault; Priyanka Gupta; Michael Ehlert; Emily Dove-Medows; Marlene Seltzer; Donna J Carrico; Jason Gilleran; Jamie Bartley; Kenneth M Peters; Larry Sirls Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.370