3.8 Article

Validation of the Arabic linguistic version of the Ureteral Stent Symptoms Questionnaire

Journal

ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 290-293

Publisher

ARAB ASSOC UROLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2014.08.001

Keywords

Ureteric stent; Symptoms; JJ stent; Questionnaire; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To validate the Arabic version of the Ureteral Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ). Patients and methods: The English version of the USSQ was translated into Arabic using a multi-step process by three urologists and two independent translators. The Arabic version was validated by asking 37 patients with temporary unilateral ureteric stents to complete the questionnaire at 2 weeks after stent insertion. The second group included 53 healthy individuals who agreed to complete the Arabic version of the questionnaire. The reliability of the Arabic version was evaluated for internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha test. Domain structures were examined by interdomain (section) associations using Spearman's correlation coefficient (r). The discrimination validity was evaluated by comparing the scores of patients with those of healthy individuals, using the Mann- Whitney test. Results: Internal consistency was high for the sexual index and intermediate for urinary, pain and general health indices. There were good correlations of urinary symptoms with body pain (r = 0.596) and general health (r = 0.690). There was also a good correlation between body pain and general health (r = 0.681). For discrimination validity, there were significant changes in all domain scores when comparing patients with ureteric stents and healthy individuals (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The Arabic version of the USSQ is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used to evaluate symptoms and health-related quality of life in Arabic patients with ureteric stents. (C) 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Arab Association of Urology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available