4.0 Article

Validation of a Visual Analog Scale Form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire 12

Journal

FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 246-248

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318232e344

Keywords

PISQ-12; visual analog scale; validation; vaginal surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study aimed to validate a visual analog scale (VAS) form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12). Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of a vaginal anatomy and sexual function study. All women undergoing vaginal reconstruction between October 2008 and December 2009 were asked to participate. We planned for an analysis of 30 women for this validation. Preoperatively, sexually active participants completed a questionnaire containing a PISQ-12 in Likert (0-4) and VAS (0-10) format. Within 30 days, participants completed a PISQ-12 in VAS form only for evaluation of test-retest reliability. At 6 months after surgery, participants completed the PISQ-12 in both the Likert and VAS forms. For each item on the PISQ-12, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to estimate the correlation between the Likert and VAS formats using the responses from the same assessment period (before or after surgery). The intraclass correlation coefficient was estimated to assess the test-retest agreement. Results: A total of 43 women completed the preoperative questionnaire, 25 completed the retest, and 37 completed the postoperative questionnaire. When PISQ-12 scores were compared between the Likert and VAS forms, correlation values were 0.88 preoperatively and 0.91 postoperatively. Test-retest reliability was high with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87. Most women preferred the Likert version (71.4% preoperatively and 55.0% postoperatively). Conclusions: The VAS form of the PISQ-12 is both reliable and reproducible and avoids the limitations of the Likert scale.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available