Development and validation of a colorectal functional outcome questionnaire
- 369 Downloads
After colorectal surgery, patients often experience impaired functional outcome. Faecal incontinence grading systems and self-assessment questionnaires are frequently used to assess these complaints. The available faecal incontinence grading systems have been validated, but have a limited focus, while more comprehensive questionnaires, which have been developed, have not been validated.
To investigate the reliability and validity of a newly developed, colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire and of Dutch translations of the Hallböök questionnaire and an adapted version of the Vaizey questionnaire.
Two hundred fifty-seven patients with and without impaired functional outcome after (colorectal) surgery received a booklet containing the three questionnaires in random order by mail. One hundred seventy-nine (70%) completed them, and 160 patients (90%) completed a retest within, on average, 18 days.
Reliability and validity were adequate for the COREFO and Hallböök questionnaire, with slight differences in the psychometric analyses in favour of the COREFO questionnaire. Significantly more patients found the COREFO questionnaire to reflect their problems best. The reliability of the Vaizey questionnaire was not sufficient.
The newly developed COREFO questionnaire and the previously unvalidated Hallböök questionnaire are both suitable instruments to evaluate functional outcome after colorectal surgery. The psychometric analyses showed a slight difference in favour of the COREFO questionnaire and significantly more patients preferred the COREFO questionnaire to the other questionnaires. Therefore, we prefer to use the COREFO questionnaire in future research.
KeywordsValidation Questionnaire Functional outcome Colorectal surgery
- 3.Van Duijvendijk P, Slors JF, Taat CW, Van Tets WF, Van Tienhoven G, Obertop H, Boeckxstaens GE (2002) Prospective evaluation of anorectal function after total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2282–2289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Shibata D, Guillem JG, Lanoutte N, Paty P, Minsky B, Harrison L, Wong WD, Cohen A (2000) Functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with rectal cancer after combined modality therapy, intraoperative radiation therapy, and sphincter preservation. Dis Colon Rectum 43:752–758PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hida J, Yasutomi M, Fuijmoto K, Okuno K, Idea S, Machidera N, Kubo R, Shindo K, Koh K (1996) Functional outcome after low anterior resection with low anastomosis for rectal cancer using the colonic J-pouch. Prospective randomized study for determination of optimum pouch size. Dis Colon Rectum 39:986–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Scores and measurements: validity, reliability, sensitivity. In: Quality of life; assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 45–71Google Scholar
- 16.Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Questionnaire development and scoring. In: Quality of life; assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 135–153Google Scholar
- 17.Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334Google Scholar
- 18.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kerlinger FN (1973) Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 20.Cohen J (1980) Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar