Validation of a single summary score for the Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire–IUGA revised (PISQ-IR)
- 274 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire–International Urogynecology Association (IUGA) Revised (PISQ-IR) measures sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) yet is unwieldy, with six individual subscale scores for sexually active women and four for women who are not. We hypothesized that a valid and responsive summary score could be created for the PISQ-IR.
Item response data from participating women who completed a revised version of the PISQ-IR at three clinical sites were used to generate item weights using a magnitude estimation (ME) and Q-sort (Q) approaches. Item weights were applied to data from the original PISQ-IR validation to generate summary scores. Correlation and factor analysis methods were used to evaluate validity and responsiveness of summary scores.
Weighted and nonweighted summary scores for the sexually active PISQ-IR demonstrated good criterion validity with condition-specific measures: Incontinence Severity Index = 0.12, 0.11, 0.11; Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 = 0.39, 0.39, 0.12; Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire-Q35 = 0.26 0,.25, 0.40); Female Sexual Functioning Index subscale total score = 0.72, 0.75, 0.72 for nonweighted, ME, and Q summary scores, respectively. Responsiveness evaluation showed weighted and nonweighted summary scores detected moderate effect sizes (Cohen’s d > 0.5). Weighted items for those NSA demonstrated significant floor effects and did not meet criterion validity.
A PISQ-IR summary score for use with sexually active women, nonweighted or calculated with ME or Q item weights, is a valid and reliable measure for clinical use. The summary scores provide value for assesing clinical treatment of pelvic floor disorders.
KeywordsPelvic floor disorders PISQ-IR Validated questionnaire Sexual function Prolapse
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Dr. Rogers has received paid travel expenses or honoraria from UptoDate, ABOG, AUGS, and IUGA. He is on the Board of ABOG, AUGS, and IUGA.
No funding was received for this study.
- 1.Rogers RG, Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Thakar R, Kammerer-Doak DN, Pauls RN, et al. A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the pelvic organ prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire, IUGA-revised (PISQ-IR). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24(7):1091–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1980.Google Scholar
- 4.Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Singapore Sage Publications; 2012.Google Scholar
- 5.Hersen M. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, behavioral assessment. Hokoben: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
- 6.McKeown B, Thomas D. Q methodology. Series 66: quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1988.Google Scholar
- 8.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. New York: Academic Press; 1977.Google Scholar
- 11.Tversky A, Shafir E. Preference, belief, and similarity: selected writings. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004.Google Scholar