Turkish translation of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire: validity and reliability
Introduction and hypothesis
To translate the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ) into Turkish and test its validity and reliability.
The study included 341 women. The translation of the PIKQ, which comprised of the urinary incontinence (PIKQ-UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (PIKQ-POP) sections, was performed in accordance with international recommendations. The Incontinence Quiz (IQ) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were applied to assess the level of knowledge about POP and UI. Psychometric analyses consisted of assessing the following: (1) construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis, (2) criterion and known group validity, (3) internal consistency reliability by the KR-20 coefficient, and (4) test-retest reliability over 1 week with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
All fit indices except the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual indicated acceptable fit for the final models. Criterion validity was supported by moderate correlations between the PIKQ-UI and the IQ (rho = 0.679, p < 0.001). There were positive and weak linear correlations between the PIKQ-UI and PIKQ-POP scores and their corresponding perceived knowledge scores (rho = 0.351, p = 0.013 and rho = 0.345, p = 0.014, respectively). The known group validity did not show differences indicating that participants did not have enough knowledge about UI and/or POP even when they had the condition or acquaintance with them (p = 0.852 and p = 0.185, respectively). Reliability was excellent as indicated by the ICCs of 0.91–0.90, and KR-20 of 0.67–0.75 indicated good internal consistency for the PIKQ-UI and PIKQ-POP, respectively.
The Turkish version of the PIKQ is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the knowledge of UI and POP.
KeywordsPelvic floor dysfunction Prolapse and incontinence knowledge questionnaire Validity Reliability
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 5.Jundt K, Peschers U, Kentenich H. The investigation and treatment of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(33–34):564–74.Google Scholar
- 11.Comrey AL, Backer TE, Glaser EMA. Sourcebook for mental health measures. Oxford. Oxford: Human Interaction Research Institue; 1973.Google Scholar
- 12.Kara KC, Citak Karakaya I, Tunali N, Karakaya MG. Reliability and validity of the incontinence quiz-Turkish version. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;44(1):144–50.Google Scholar
- 13.Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, CRC press; 1990.Google Scholar
- 15.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 20.Richter LA, Gutman RE, Tefera E, Estep A, Iglesia CB. Knowledge of erectile dysfunction and pelvic floor disorders among young adults: a cross-sectional study. Can J Urol. 2015;22(2):7715–9.Google Scholar
- 24.Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 27.Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth international consultation on incontinence recommendations of the international scientific committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Salvucci S, Walter E, Conley V, Fink S, Saba M. Measurement error studies at the National Center for education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1997.Google Scholar