Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2013-06, Vol.24 (6), p.1039-1046
• Main Authors: Yoshida, Mikako, Murayama, Ryoko, Ota, Erika, Nakata, Maki, Kozuma, Shiro, Homma, Yukio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Asian Continental Ancestry Group; Culture; Fecal Incontinence - etiology; Fecal Incontinence - psychology; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Language; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Original Article; Pelvic Floor Disorders - complications; Pelvic Floor Disorders - psychology; Quality of Life - psychology; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Translating; Urinary Incontinence - etiology; Urinary Incontinence - psychology; Urology
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-012-1962-1

Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to translate the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) into Japanese and test its reliability and validity among Japanese women. Methods Fifty-nine women with and without pelvic floor disorders (age 55.8 ± 16.8 years, mean ± SD) completed the Japanese PFDI-20 (J-PFDI-20) questionnaire at baseline and 2 weeks later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the Bland and Altman method for test-retest reliability and Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of the J-PFDI-20 were used. Scores of total and subscales were compared between women with and without pelvic floor disorders for known-groups validity. Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the J-PFDI-20 and the severity of pelvic floor disorders and Urinary Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (I-QOL) were used for construct validity. Results The PFDI-20 was successfully translated from English into Japanese with face validity through rigorous cross-cultural validation. Test-retest reliability of the J-PFDI-20 and three subscales was good to excellent (ICC = 0.77–0.90). The Bland and Altman analysis showed that differences between the first and second scores of total J-PFDI-20 and its subscales were not significantly different from 0 and largely fell within the range of 0 ± 1.96 SD. Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.52–0.83. Analysis of known-groups validity showed differences in scores of the J-PFDI-20 between women with and without pelvic floor disorders. Acceptable construct validity was found in J-PFDI-20 total and subscale scores with positive correlations to severity of pelvic floor disorders ( ρ  > 0.35) and negative correlations to I-QOL ( ρ