4.5 Article

Validation study of the Japanese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 194-199

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02558.x

关键词

Faecal incontinence; quality of life; faecal incontinence quality of life; scale; validity; reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The aim of the present study was to conduct a psychometric validation of the Japanese version of the FIQL (JFIQL). Method A retrospective analysis of data from the JFIQL was conducted. Wexner scores and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) scores were collected prospectively in patients with faecal incontinence who visited our centre between 2008 and 2009. For convergent validity, the JFIQL scores were compared with stages on the Wexner scale for lifestyle alteration. To evaluate reliability, Cronbach's alpha was calculated for internal consistency, whereas a test-retest study was performed to evaluate reproducibility. In assessing responsiveness, JFIQL scores before and after treatments were compared in patients whose FISI scores decreased by 50%. Results Convergent validity and internal consistency were determined in 70 patients (49 women; median age 68.5 years). The JFIQL scores were significantly associated with lifestyle alteration stages on the Wexner scale, demonstrating convergent validity in all four domains and the generic score. Cronbach's alpha was > 0.7 for generic scores and all domains except Embarrassment. The intraclass correlations for the 27 patients available for the test-retest study were > 0.7 for generic scores and all domains except Embarrassment. The median JFIQL score improved significantly after treatment in the 23 patients whose FISI scores decreased 50%, indicating good responsiveness in all four domains and the generic score. Conclusion The JFIQL has been validated and is now ready for use in evaluating the symptom-specific quality of life in Japanese patients with faecal incontinence.

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

4.5
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