Validation of the Chinese version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) according to the COSMIN checklist

  • Yidi Ma
  • Tao Xu
  • Ye Zhang
  • Meng Mao
  • Jia Kang
  • Lan ZhuEmail author
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to translate the short version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) into Chinese and to evaluate its psychometric properties in Chinese women with symptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist.


Between October 2017 and May 2018, a cross-sectional analysis of the clinical data of 126 patients who met the inclusion criteria was performed. The patients completed the questionnaires at the baseline (T1), 1–2 weeks later (T2), and 3 months after surgery (T3). Reliability testing included internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and measurement error. The methodical tests for validity were content validity, criterion validity, construct validity, and hypothesis testing. Responsiveness was also taken into consideration.


One hundred twenty-six patients completed all questionnaires. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s alpha value, was good, and the test–retest reliability was high, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.99. Construct validity was verified by factor analysis. All assumptions were confirmed, and there were no ceiling or floor effects in this study. Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the PFDI-20 and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) was 0.867, showing a significant correlation. Furthermore, the minimal important change (MIC) of 50.0 was less than the smallest detectable change (SDC) of 18.36, indicating the sufficient responsiveness.


The Chinese version of the PFDI-20 developed in this study is a reliable and valid instrument that provides good responsiveness to clinical changes.


PFDI-20 questionnaire Chinese validation COSMIN checklist 


Financial support

This study received financial support from the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine (CAMS-I2M) (No. 2017-I2M-1-002).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Zhu L, et al. The epidemiological study of women with urinary incontinence and risk factors for stress urinary incontinence in China. Menopause. 2009;16(4):831–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan SS, et al. Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence in Chinese women during and after their first pregnancy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber MD. Questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(4):461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barber MD, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Treszezamsky AD, et al. Spanish translation and validation of four short pelvic floor disorders questionnaires. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(4):655–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoshida M, et al. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):1039–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Utomo E, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arouca MA, et al. Validation and cultural translation for Brazilian Portuguese version of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1097–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teig CJ, et al. Norwegian translation, and validation, of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(7):1005–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teleman P, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Due U, et al. Validation of the pelvic floor distress Inventory-20 and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire-7 in Danish women with pelvic organ prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(9):1041–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu L, et al. Chinese validation of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form. MENOPAUSE. 2011;18(9):1030–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mokkink LB, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terwee CB, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yalcin I, et al. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srikrishna S, et al. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Acquadro C, et al. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11(3):509–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henn EW, et al. Validation of the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 quality of life questionnaires in two African languages. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1883–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shumaker SA, et al. 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. 1994;3(5):291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Terwee CB, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):524–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical CollegeChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations