Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to validate a self-administered version of the already validated interviewer-administered Australian pelvic floor questionnaire.

Methods

The questionnaire was completed by 163 women attending an urogynecological clinic. Face and convergent validity was assessed. Reliability testing and comparison with the interviewer-administered version was performed in a subset of 105 patients. Responsiveness was evaluated in a subset of 73 women.

Results

Missing data did not exceed 4% for any question. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable in all domains. Kappa coefficients for the test–retest analyses varied from 0.64–1.0. Prolapse symptoms correlated significantly with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification. Urodynamics confirmed the reported symptom stress incontinence in 70%. The self and interviewer-administered questionnaires demonstrated equivalence. Effect sizes ranged from 0.6 to 1.4.

Conclusions

This self-administered pelvic floor questionnaire assessed pelvic floor function in a reproducible and valid fashion and due to its responsiveness, can be used for routine clinical assessment and outcome research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baessler K, O'Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D (2009) Australian pelvic floor questionnaire: a validated interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire for routine clinic and research. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am j Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koch GG, Landis JR, Freeman JL, Freeman DH Jr, Lehnen RC (1977) A general methodology for the analysis of experiments with repeated measurement of categorical data. Biometrics 33:133–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill TM, Feinstein AR (1994) A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 272:619–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Katz JN, Harris TM, Larson MG, Krushell RJ, Brown CH, Fossel AH et al (1992) Predictors of functional outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. J Rheumatol 19:1938–1942

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Amarenco G, Arnould B, Carita P, Haab F, Labat JJ, Richard F (2003) European psychometric validation of the CONTILIFE: a quality of life questionnaire for urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 43:391–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA (1994) Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group. Qual Life Res 3:291–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1374–1379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson S, Donovan J, Brookes S, Eckford S, Swithinbank L, Abrams P (1996) The Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol 77:805–812

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kulseng-Hanssen S, Borstad E (2003) The development of a questionnaire to measure the severity of symptoms and the quality of life before and after surgery for stress incontinence. Bjog 110:983–988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bug GJ, Kiff ES, Hosker G (2001) A new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence. Bjog 108:1057–1067

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR (2000) Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors: fecal incontinence questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum 43:146–153 discussion 153-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC (2001) Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1388–1395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Buckwalter JG, Burchette RJ, Nager CW, Luber KM (2005) Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:272–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J (2006) The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol 175:1063–1066; discussion 1066

  18. Avery KN, Bosch JL, Gotoh M, Naughton M, Jackson S, Radley SC et al (2007) Questionnaires to assess urinary and anal incontinence: review and recommendations. J Urol 177:39–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:103–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, Brookes ST, Abrams P (2006) Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ vaginal symptoms questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. Bjog 113:700–712

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23:322–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cotterill N, Norton C, Avery KN, Abrams P, Donovan JL (2008) A patient-centered approach to developing a comprehensive symptom and quality of life assessment of anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 51:82–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G (1987) Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 40:171–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD (2001) Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 39:1039–1047

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lydick E, Epstein RS (1993) Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 2:221–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T (2005) Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 14:285–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL (2007) The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res 16:815–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology, Pelvic Floor Centre Charité, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany

    Kaven Baessler

  2. Betty Byrne Henderson Women’s Health Research Centre, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospitals, Brisbane, Queensland, Level 6, Ned Hanlon Building, Herston, Qld, 4029, Australia

    Sheila M. O’Neill

  3. Royal Brisbane & Women’s, Wesley and Mater Hospitals, Brisbane, Suite 86, Sandford Jackson Building, 30 Chasely St, Auchenflower, Qld, 4066, Australia

    Christopher F. Maher

  4. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, 4059, Qld, Australia

    Diana Battistutta

Authors
  1. Kaven Baessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheila M. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher F. Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana Battistutta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaven Baessler.

Additional information

The validation of the self-administered pelvic floor questionnaire without sensitivity to change was presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society in 2004, Paris (podium presentation; extended abstract): a validated female pelvic floor questionnaire for clinicians and researchers. Baessler K, O’Neill S, Maher C, Battistutta D. Neurourol Urodynam 2004; 23: 398–399.

Appendix

Appendix

Self-administered Australian pelvic floor questionnaire: please note that the numbers for scoring have been included to facilitate the interpretation of the questionnaire. When applying this questionnaire to a patient, the numbers should be replaced by boxes to avoid any bias.

figure afigure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baessler, K., O’Neill, S.M., Maher, C.F. et al. A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J 21, 163–172 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0997-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0997-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation