4.6 Article

Reliability and Validity of a Modified Bristol Stool Form Scale for Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 159, Issue 3, Pages 437-U295

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.03.002

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 NR05337, UH2 DK083990, RC2 NR011959]
  3. Daffy's Foundation
  4. USDA/ARS [6250-51000-043, P30 DK56338]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This study sought to: evaluate the ability of children to reliably use a modified Bristol Stool Form Scale for Children (mBSFS-C), evaluate criterion-related validity of the mBSFS-C, and identify the lower age limit for mBSFS-C use. Study design The mBSFS-C comprises 5 stool form types described and depicted in drawings. Children 3 to 18 years old rated stool form for 10 stool photographs. Because of low reliability when stool form descriptors were not read aloud (n = 119), a subsequent sample of children (n = 191) rated photographs with descriptors read. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients for descriptor-unread versus -read samples were 0.62 and 0.79, respectively. Children were increasingly reliable with age. Percentage of correct ratings varied with stool form type, but generally increased with age. With descriptors unread, children 8 years and older demonstrated acceptable interobserver reliability, with >78% of ratings correct. With descriptors read, children 6 years and older demonstrated acceptable reliability, with >80% of ratings correct. Conclusions The mBSFS-C is reliable and valid for use by children, with age 6 years being the lower limit for scale use with descriptors read and age 8 years being the lower limit without descriptors read. We anticipate that the mBSFS-C can be effectively used in pediatric clinical and research settings. (J Pediatr 2011;159:437-41).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available