Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 131–137 | Cite as

Transcultural translation and validation of the FIGO Assessment Scoring System (FASS) to Portuguese language

  • Ana Eliza Rios de Araújo Mathias
  • Márcia Silva de Oliveira
  • Carolina Mayumi Haruta
  • Fábia Maria de Lima
  • Kátia Cristina Lima de Petribú
  • Geraldo de Aguiar CavalcantiEmail author
  • Steven E. Swift
  • Alessandro Digesu
Original Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Our aim was to validate the Brazilian Portuguese version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Assessment Scoring System (FASS) to identify and quantify signs and symptoms related to pelvic floor dysfunction.

Methods

One hundred and seventy-nine women aged 18–82 (47.68 ± 14.42) years participated in this validation study. Collected data included a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, application of the FASS, and physical examination using the Pelvic Prgan Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following the international methodology. The psychometric properties tested were criterion validity, construct validity, stability, and reliability. For this purpose, the comparison with POP-Q findings and between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, test–retest and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) were used, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between evaluations (inter- and intraobservers). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.76, indicating strong reliability for the validation sample. Symptomatic women had different scores on all FASS items as well as total score when compared with asymptomatic women (p < 0.001). Intraobserver coefficient ranged from 0.91 (urinary symptoms) to 0.98 (FASS total score), indicating excellent concordance level in all items. Interobserver coefficient ranged from 0.47 (intestinal symptoms) to 0.90 (FASS total score), indicating moderate to excellent correlation.

Conclusions

The psychometric properties tested in the FASS Portuguese version proved to be a valid and reliable for evaluating signs and symptoms related to pelvic floor function in Brazilian women.

Keywords

Validation studies Pelvic organ prolapse Psychometrics 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

FASS

FIGO Assessment Scoring System

FIGO

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

ICC

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

ICS

International Continence Society

IUGA

International Urogynecological Association

POP

Pelvic organ prolapse

POP-Q

Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification

QoL

Quality of Life

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

AERA Mathias: None; MS Oliveira: None; CM Haruta: Speaker of the Astellas laboratories; FM Lima: None; KCL Petribú: Speaker of the Jansen and Servier; GA Cavalcanti: Speaker of the Astellas laboratories; SE Swift: None; A Digesu: None.

References

  1. 1.
    Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) /International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:165–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Rahimi S, Negro R, Vergara, Martignago R, Pellegrino M, Cavallotti M (2010) Age-related pelvic floor modifications and prolapse risk factors in postmenopausal women. Menopause 17(1).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues AM, Oliveira LM, Martins KF, Roy CA, Sartori MGF, Girão MJBC, et al. Risk factors for genital prolapse in a Brazilian population. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(1):17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber MA, Kleijn MH, Langendam M, Limpens J, Heineman MJ, Roovers JP. Local oestrogen for pelvic floor disorders: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Digesu GA, Swift S, Puccini F, Manonai J, Khullar V, Fernando R, et al. The FIGO assessment scoring system (FASS): a new holistic classification tool to assess women with pelvic floor dysfunction: validity and reliability. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):859–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2604-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S124–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avery K, Donovan J, Abrams P. Validation of a new questionnaire for incontinence: the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire (ICIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2001;20(4):510–1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Genesté B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health. 1999;2(2):113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Eliza Rios de Araújo Mathias
    • 1
  • Márcia Silva de Oliveira
    • 2
  • Carolina Mayumi Haruta
    • 3
  • Fábia Maria de Lima
    • 4
  • Kátia Cristina Lima de Petribú
    • 4
  • Geraldo de Aguiar Cavalcanti
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Steven E. Swift
    • 5
  • Alessandro Digesu
    • 6
  1. 1.University of Pernambuco (UPE)PetrolinaBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE)RecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Professor Fernando Figueira Integral Medicine Institute (IMIP)RecifeBrazil
  4. 4.University of Pernambuco (UPE)RecifeBrazil
  5. 5.Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC)CharlestonUSA
  6. 6.Imperial College Healthcare TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations