Reliability and validity of the Tigrigna version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory–Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7)

  • Gelila K. Goba
  • Awol Yeman Legesse
  • Yibrah Berhe Zelelow
  • Mussie Alemayehu Gebreselassie
  • Rebecca G. Rogers
  • Kimberly S. Kenton
  • Margaret G. Mueller
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This study adapted the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory–Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7) into the Tigrigna language of northern Ethiopia and validated the their reliability and validity through patient interviews.

Methods

Expert translation, cognitive interviewing, and patient interviews using translated questionnaires were conducted. A subset of women was reinterviewed 1 week later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, and Cronbach’s alpha values were assessed. Total and subscale scores were compared between women with and without pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) using the Mann–Whitney U test. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to compare severity of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) stage according to the POP Quantification (POP-Q) system and PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 and subscale scores.

Results

Ten women participated in cognitive interviewing and 118 age 49 ± 10 years, mean ± standard deviation (SD) with and without PFDs were interviewed using the translated questionnaires, both of which presented adequate face validity and test–retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.765–0.969, p < 0.001]. Construct validity was significant between clinical symptoms and full forms (p <0.001) and their subscales (p <0.001), except for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire (POPIQ). Differences between first and second scores on total PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 and subscales largely fell within 0 ± 1.96 SD. Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.891–0.930 for PFDI-20 and 0.909–0.956 for PFIQ-7 (p < 0.001). Analysis of known groups showed differences PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores between women with and without PFDs (p <0.001 for full forms and subscales, except for anal incontinence (AI) and the Urinary Impact Questionnaire (UIQ)/POPIQ.

Conclusion

The translated Tigrigna versions of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 questionnaires are reliable, valid, and feasible tools to evaluate symptoms and quality of life (QoL) of Tigrigna-speaking Ethiopian women with PFDs.

Keywords

Pelvic floor disorder PFDI-20 PFIQ-7 Ethiopia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to study participants and Mekelle University College of Health Sciences. They also thank Ken Divelbess, MPA, for assistance editing the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Megabiaw B, Adefris M, Rortveit G, Degu G, Muleta M, Blystad A, et al. Pelvic floor disorders among women in Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia: a pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1135–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. 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. 2005;193(1):103–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young AE, Fine PM, McCrery R, Wren PA, Richter HE, Brubaker L, et al. Spanish language translation of pelvic floor disorders instruments. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(10):1171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Omotosho TB, Hardart A, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, Kobak WH, Romero AA. Validation of Spanish versions of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ): a multicenter validation randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(6):623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sánchez-Sánchez B, Torres-Lacomba M, Yuste-Sánchez MJ, Navarro-Brazález B, Pacheco-da-Costa S, Gutiérrez-Ortega C, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory short form (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form (PFIQ-7) Spanish versions. Europe J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):281–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Tayrac R, Deval B, Fernandez H, Marès P, Institute, M. R. Validation linguistique en français des versions courtes des questionnaires de symptômes (PFDI-20) et de qualité de vie (PFIQ-7) chez les patientes présentant un trouble de la statique pelvienne. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction. 2007;36(8):738–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teleman P, Stenzelius K, Iorizzo L, Jakobsson U. Validation of the Swedish short forms of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(5):483–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhu L, Yu S, Xu T, Yang X, Lu Y, Li B, et al. Chinese validation of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form. Menopause. 2011;18(9):1030–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Celenay ST, Akbayrak T, Kaya S, Ekici G, Beksac S. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pelvic floor distress Inventory-20. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(8):1123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaplan PB, Sut N, Sut HK. Validation, cultural adaptation and responsiveness of two pelvic-floor-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7, in a Turkish population. Europe J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(2):229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Treszezamsky AD, Karp D, Dick-Biascoechea M, Ehsani N, Dancz C, Montoya TI, et al. Spanish translation and validation of four short pelvic floor disorders questionnaires. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(4):655–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Principles of measurement scales. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Second edition, 31–48.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Utomo E, Blok BF, Steensma AB, Korfage IJ. Validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in a Dutch population. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):531–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoshida M, Murayama R, Ota E, Nakata M, Kozuma S, Homma Y. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):1039–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gelila K. Goba
    • 1
  • Awol Yeman Legesse
    • 2
  • Yibrah Berhe Zelelow
    • 2
  • Mussie Alemayehu Gebreselassie
    • 3
  • Rebecca G. Rogers
    • 4
  • Kimberly S. Kenton
    • 5
  • Margaret G. Mueller
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMekelle UniversityMekelleEthiopia
  3. 3.School of Public HealthMekelle UniversityMekelleEthiopia
  4. 4.Department of Women’s HealthDell Medical School, The University of TexasAustinUSA
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations