Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 1901–1907 | Cite as

Validation of a single summary score for the Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire–IUGA revised (PISQ-IR)

  • Melissa L. ConstantineEmail author
  • Rachel N. Pauls
  • Rebecca R. Rogers
  • Todd H. Rockwood
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Pelvic floor disorders PISQ-IR Validated questionnaire Sexual function Prolapse 

Notes

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.

Funding statement

No funding was received for this study.

Supplementary material

192_2017_3373_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Lodge M. Magnitude scaling, quantitative measurement of opinions. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Singapore Sage Publications; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hersen M. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, behavioral assessment. Hokoben: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKeown B, Thomas D. Q methodology. Series 66: quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. New York: Academic Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international urogynecologic association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campbell DT, Russo MJ. Social measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tversky A, Shafir E. Preference, belief, and similarity: selected writings. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwarz N, Bienias J. What mediates the impact of response alternatives on frequency reports of mundane behaviors? Appl Cogn Psychol. 2006;4(1):61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwarz N, Sudman S. Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Adegoke O, Rogers RG, McDermott E, Davila GW, et al. The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1105–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa L. Constantine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rachel N. Pauls
    • 2
  • Rebecca R. Rogers
    • 3
  • Todd H. Rockwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Health Policy & ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.TriHealth Good Samaritan HospitalCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Division of UrogynecologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations