4.7 Article

Development and validation of an improved, COPD-Specific version of the St. George respiratory questionnaire

期刊

CHEST
卷 132, 期 2, 页码 456-463

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.06-0702

关键词

COPD; health-related quality of life; health status; St. George respiratory questionnaire; questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To produce an improved, COPD-specific version of the St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ-C). Methods: Five different steps were required: (1) Rasch analysis of the responses of 893 COPD patients to the St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) identified weaker items to be removed; (2) a scoring algorithm was produced using data from 1,036 patients; (3) validity of the new and original SGRQ was tested using data from the original validation study; (4) responsiveness was tested using data from a previously published trial; and (5) a reworded version (SGRQ-C) that no longer specified the recall period was administered to 63 pulmonary rehabilitation participants. Results: Items were removed due to lack of response (n = 1), misfit to the Rasch model (n = 8), and disordered responses (n = 1). Another six items had disordered responses; this was corrected. Scores from the two versions differed slightly, so the scoring algorithm was revised to produce scores equivalent to the original. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCC) for the scores for original and new versions was 0.99. Correlations with other measures of disease were very similar to those obtained with the original. New and original scores for treatment effects were similar: difference, 0.1 +/- 2.7 U (+/- SD). Baseline SGRQ and SGRQ-C scores were similar (ICCC, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 0.97; mean difference, 0.9 +/- 5.8 U). Change scores were similar (difference, 1.0 +/- 7.3 U). Conclusions: The SGRQ-C contains the best of the original items, no longer specifies a recall period, and produces scores equivalent to the original. (CHEST 2007; 132:456-463)

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

4.7
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