INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to validate the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in Dutch women. METHODS: Patients with pelvic floor dysfunction completed the Dutch questionnaires at (1) inclusion to evaluate internal consistency, (2) 1 week later to assess test-retest reliability, and (3) 6 months later to assess responsiveness and interpretability of change. To assess validity, floor and ceiling effects and construct validity were tested. A population-based sample (reference group) completed the questionnaires once. RESULTS: Data of 111 patients and 283 reference group participants were analyzed. Internal consistency of baseline scores in patient and reference groups was moderate (Cronbach's alpha 0.52-0.60) to adequate in the PFDI-20 (Cronbach's alpha 0.71-0.84) and adequate in the PFIQ-7 (Cronbach's alpha 0.88-0.94). Both measures presented adequate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.79-0.91) and adequate responsiveness (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve both 0.77). Interpretability was adequate for PFDI-20 and acceptable for PFIQ-7 with a clinically relevant minimally important change of -23 and -29 points, respectively. At baseline, the scales of the PFIQ-7 showed floor effects (44-55 %) in patients, though the PFIQ-7 summary score did not. No ceiling effects were observed. Construct validity was adequate with all predefined hypotheses confirmed regarding subgroup discrimination using pooled patient and reference group baseline data. CONCLUSIONS: For assessing distress and health-related quality of life of pelvic floor dysfunction, the Dutch PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 are reliable and valid in the general Dutch population, and also responsive and interpretable among tertiary care-seeking women.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to validate the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in Dutch women. METHODS:Patients with pelvic floor dysfunction completed the Dutch questionnaires at (1) inclusion to evaluate internal consistency, (2) 1 week later to assess test-retest reliability, and (3) 6 months later to assess responsiveness and interpretability of change. To assess validity, floor and ceiling effects and construct validity were tested. A population-based sample (reference group) completed the questionnaires once. RESULTS: Data of 111 patients and 283 reference group participants were analyzed. Internal consistency of baseline scores in patient and reference groups was moderate (Cronbach's alpha 0.52-0.60) to adequate in the PFDI-20 (Cronbach's alpha 0.71-0.84) and adequate in the PFIQ-7 (Cronbach's alpha 0.88-0.94). Both measures presented adequate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.79-0.91) and adequate responsiveness (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve both 0.77). Interpretability was adequate for PFDI-20 and acceptable for PFIQ-7 with a clinically relevant minimally important change of -23 and -29 points, respectively. At baseline, the scales of the PFIQ-7 showed floor effects (44-55 %) in patients, though the PFIQ-7 summary score did not. No ceiling effects were observed. Construct validity was adequate with all predefined hypotheses confirmed regarding subgroup discrimination using pooled patient and reference group baseline data. CONCLUSIONS: For assessing distress and health-related quality of life of pelvic floor dysfunction, the Dutch PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 are reliable and valid in the general Dutch population, and also responsive and interpretable among tertiary care-seeking women.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Lisette A 't Hoen; Elaine Utomo; Anneke B Steensma; Bertil F M Blok; Ida J Korfage Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Marian Wiegersma; Chantal M C R Panman; Boudewijn J Kollen; Marjolein Y Berger; Yvonne Lisman-Van Leeuwen; Janny H Dekker Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-12-22
Authors: Nina Kristiina Mattsson; Kari Nieminen; Anna-Mari Heikkinen; Jyrki Jalkanen; Sari Koivurova; Marja-Liisa Eloranta; Pia Suvitie; Anna-Maija Tolppanen Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.186