Reliability And Validity Of The Chinese Version Of The Pelvic Floor Distress Questionnaires

ObjectiveThe goal of this paper was to translate English versions of Pelvic Floor DistressInventory short form(PFDI-20) and Urogenital Distress Inventory short form6(UDI-6)into Chinese by cross-cultural adaptation, and then test their validity, reliability andresponsiveness.Methods(1) Study objects: Women which included116with pelvic floor disorders and120with urinary incontinence were enrolled from February2013to December2013inFuzhou general hospital.(2) Translation: It was followed by Beaton’s guidelines for the process ofcross-cultural adaptation: initial translation, back translation, synthesis of the transla-tions, modification,pretest.(3) Statistical method: The Chinese versions of PFDI-20and UDI-6were testedby reliability, validity and responsiveness.ResultsPart1: Validity and reliability of the PFDI-20Chinese version.(1) Characteristics of study subjects:116women with pelvic floor disorderscompleted the study. Of these116total women,20had stage I,13had stage II,20hadstage III and63had stage IV pelvic organ prolapse according to POP-Q.(2) Internal consistency: Cronbach’ alpha values were0.790-0.879(>0.7) forPFDI-20and and it showed correlation well among items.(3) Test-retest reliability:30women completed PFDI-20again in the second week.Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was0.776-0.818(>0.7)and it showed stabilitywell. (4) Construct validity: It was assessed by exploratory factor analysis.Componentswas extracted by principal component analysis. Communality was0.524-0.890（>0.4）,the cumulative variance from the extracted components was68.225%（>50%）andvalue of factor loading on each factor was0.484-0.938（>0.4）. It showed the Chineseversion of PFDI-20according with the original questionaires.(5) Criterion validity：Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the PFDI-20andthe PFIQ-7was0.722-0.748(>0.7,P<0.05) and it showed strong correlation.(6) Responsiveness: Scores between pre-operation and post-operation wereassessed by paired t-test. Values were lesser than0.05and it showed responsivenesswell.Part2: Validity and reliability of the UDI-6Chinese version.(1) Characteristics of study subjects:120women with urinary incontinencecompleted the study. Of these120total women,71had stress urinary incontinence,12had urge urinary incontinence,35had mixed urinary incontinence and4with otherurinary incontinence.(2) Internal consistency: Cronbach’ alpha values were good (0.703-0.814)forUDI-6and and it showed high internal consistency.(3) Test-retest reliability:30women completed UDI-6again in the second week.Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was0.726-0.846(>0.7)and it showed highstability.(4) Construct validity: It is assessed by exploratory factor analysis.Componentswas extracted by principal component analysis. Communality was0.568-0.812（>0.4）,the cumulative variance from the extracted components was70.445%（>50%）and value of factor loading on each factor was0.695-0.901（>0.4）.It showedthe Chinese version of UDI-6according with the original questionaires.(5) Criterion validity：Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the UDI-6andthe IIQ-7was0.415-0.623(0.4-0.7,P<0.05),and it showed medium correlation.(6) Responsiveness:Scores between pre-operation and post-operation were assessed by paired t-test. Values were lesser than0.05and it showed responsivenesswell.Conclusions(1)The Chinese version of PFDI-20and UDI-6have a good reliability, validity andresponsiveness.(2)They could be used to respectively evaluate the quality of life about pelvic organprolapse and urinary incontinence.(3)They were importance-evaluation approaches to assess the severity inpre-operation and effect in post-operation.