Validation of the Polish version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory
- 75 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim of this study was to develop a Polish language version of the short form of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and to validate it in a sample of Polish-speaking women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs).
The PFDI-20 was initially translated in a stepwise fashion as guided by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Translation Protocol. After initial forward translation from English to Polish, a community review process consisting of cognitive interviews and confirmation via back translation was performed. The final Polish version of the PFDI-20 was administered to Polish-speaking patients presenting with PFDs at university-based urogynecology clinics in Poland and the United States, along with a Polish version of the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Internal consistency and criterion validity were assessed. Test–retest reliability was assessed in 100 patients after 2 weeks.
A total of 254 women with PFDs enrolled in this multicenter study. Complete data from 44 Polish-speaking women in the United States and 200 women in Poland were analyzed. Participants had a mean age of 60.3 ± 11.2 years and mean body mass index (BMI) 27.6 ± 4.7. Internal consistency as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was good (0.89). Criterion validity was adequate between responses on the KHQ and PFDI-20 with Pearson correlations in particular domains (0.27–0.50, P < 0.05). Excellent test–retest reliability was demonstrated by intraclass correlation using a two-way mixed-effects model with absolute agreement (0.87).
The Polish version of the PFDI is a reliable tool for evaluating pelvic floor symptoms in Polish-speaking women with PFDs.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Urinary incontinence Pelvic floor disorders Quality of life
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest, except Dr. Kenton, who receives grant funding from Boston Scientific and is an expert witness for Ethicon.
- 11.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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(6):623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Grigoriadis T, Athanasiou S, Giannoulis G, Mylona SC, Lourantou D, Antsaklis A. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Greek short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders: PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Arouca MA, Duarte TB, Lott DA, Magnani PS, Nogueira AA, Rosa-E-Silva JC, Brito LG. 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 Jan 19.Google Scholar
- 19.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding multivariate analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books; 1995. p. 99–136.Google Scholar
- 22.Gorusch RL. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.Google Scholar
- 23.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
- 24.Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997.Google Scholar
- 28.Handa VL, Zyczynski HM, Burgio KL, et al. The impact of fecal and urinary incontinence on quality of life 6 months after childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):636. e631–636 e636Google Scholar