4.2 Article

Translation and validation of the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire in the Urdu language

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 2183-2188

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05523-3

关键词

Urdu translation; Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire; Pelvic girdle pain; Pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to translate the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) into Urdu language and evaluate its cross-cultural validity and reliability among pregnant and postpartum women. The Urdu version of PGQ showed good content and convergent validity as well as high internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
Introduction and hypothesisThe Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) is designed to determine pain and limited activities in pregnant and postpartum women with pelvic girdle pain (PGP). The purpose of this study was to translate the PGQ into the Urdu language and find out the cross-cultural validity and reliability of the Urdu PGQ among pregnant and postpartum women.MethodsA translation and cultural adaptation study was performed following international guidelines. The PGQ (the Urdu version) was drafted and a pilot study was conducted on 16 pregnant and postpartum women. A total of 125 pregnant and postpartum females participated in this study for validity and test-retest reliability. SPSS 25 was used for data analysis.ResultsContent validity was analyzed by the content validity index ranging from (0.92 to 1). Convergent validity was determined by correlating the Urdu version of the PGQ with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Pearson rank correlation coefficient between the PGQ and the ODI (p=0.84) showed convergent validity. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Urdu version of the PGQ were calculated by Cronbach's alpha (alpha=0.98), and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC=0.98) respectively.ConclusionThe Urdu version of the PGQ showed good content and convergent validity as well as high internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据