4.6 Article

Italian validation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaires

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 101-108

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05885.x

关键词

validation; female LUTS; quality of life; bother

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To validate the Italian version of two questionnaires for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), i.e. the long (LF) and the short form (SF) of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ). METHODS Two native Italian speakers and a native English speaker collaborated with clinical investigators through a multistep process to obtain a consensus version of the questionnaires. The resulting Italian versions were then pre-tested during a pilot study on 16 women for the LF and 10 for the SF. The final versions of the ICIQ-LF and ICIQ-SF were administered to two samples of consecutive female patients, aged >= 18 years, who had been having LUTS for >= 3 months, with respectively 82 and 50 women. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were then assessed; to evaluate the latter, a subset of patients (25 for the ICIQ-LF and 42 for ICIQ-SF) was re-rated. To test the capacity of the questionnaires to discriminate women with or without LUTS (respectively cases and controls), a sample of healthy women was also enrolled and assessed. RESULTS Both scales showed good psychometric properties overall. The correlation coefficient between ratings was >0.75 in both questionnaires, and the discriminant power between cases and controls was confirmed for both scales. The ICIQ-SF showed good internal consistency for the total score (Cronbach's alpha. 0.90). The sections of the ICIQ-LF 'impact of incontinence on everyday life', 'emotional aspects', 'urinary symptoms' and the degree of bother seemed to be internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha >0.70); there was a weak relationship for items related to 'sexual matters' (Cronbach's alpha 0.38). CONCLUSION The Italian version of both questionnaires is a valid and robust instrument which can now be used reliably both in daily practice and in clinical research.

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

4.6
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