Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Turkish translation of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire: validity and reliability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To translate the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire (PIKQ) into Turkish and test its validity and reliability.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusions

The Turkish version of the PIKQ is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the knowledge of UI and POP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Raizada V, Mittal RK. Pelvic floor anatomy and applied physiology. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2008;37(3):493–vii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hodges PW, Sapsford R, Pengel LH. Postural and respiratory functions of the pelvic floor muscles. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(3):362–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis K, Kumar D. Pelvic floor dysfunction: a conceptual framework for collaborative patient-centred care. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43(6):555–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaw C, Tansey R, Jackson C, Hyde C, Allan R. Barriers to help seeking in people with urinary symptoms. J Fam Pract. 2001;18(1):48–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mitteness LS. Knowledge and beliefs about urinary incontinence in adulthood and old age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38(3):374–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Branch LG, Walker LA, Wetle TT, DuBeau CE, Resnick NM. Urinary incontinence knowledge among community-dwelling people 65 years of age and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(12):1257–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah AD, Massagli MP, Kohli N, Rajan SS, Braaten KP, Hoyte L. A reliable, valid instrument to assess patient knowledge about urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1283–9.

    Article  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 

  14. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG. The use of visual analog scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):165–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lt H, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marsh HW, Hocevar D. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol Bull. 1985;97(3):562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Berzuk K, Shay B. Effect of increasing awareness of pelvic floor muscle function on pelvic floor dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):837–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liebergall-Wischnitzer M, Cnaan T, Hochner H, Paltiel O. Self-reported prevalence of and knowledge about urinary incontinence among community-dwelling Israeli women of child-bearing age. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(4):401–6.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4):414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. Abingdon: Psychology Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Comrey AL. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56(5):754–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dunivan GC, Anger JT, Alas A, Wieslander C, Sevilla C, Chu S, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse: a disease of silence and shame. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(6):322–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chutka DS, Fleming KC, Evans MP, Evans JM, Andrews KL. Urinary incontinence in the elderly population. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996;71(1):93–101.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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 

  29. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Science, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey

    Seyda Toprak Celenay & Ozge Coban

  2. Clinic of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Cansu Sahbaz Pirincci

  3. Vocational School of Health Services, Department of Therapy and Rehabilitation, KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

    Zehra Korkut

  4. Guneysu Vocational School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

    Tugba Birben

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey

    Afra Alkan

  6. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ayse Filiz Avsar

Authors
  1. Seyda Toprak Celenay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ozge Coban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cansu Sahbaz Pirincci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zehra Korkut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tugba Birben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Afra Alkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ayse Filiz Avsar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyda Toprak Celenay.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Model development

Construct validity of the PIKQ-UI was first investigated with a model where all items were loaded to one latent trait called UI. The χ2 and SRMR values of the first model were beyond the acceptable fit values. After examining MI, the covariance parameter between items 5 and 11, which had the highest MI, was added to improve model fit, since both items were related to the etiology of UI. Then, covariance parameters between items 2 and 11 and items 4 and 9 were added to the model step by step. While the former parameter had the highest MI, the latter had the third highest MI, coming after the MIs of covariance parameters between items 4 and 12 and items 5 and 12. There were three parameters whose MIs were > 5 for the fourth model. However, these parameters were between items 4 and 12, items 5 and 12, and items 3 and 4, which were related to different concepts of the scale. Thus, the fourth model was taken as the final model. Model fit indices are given Table 2.

CFA analysis was performed for the PIKQ-POP in the same manner as the PIKQ-UI. Two covariance parameters were added separately to the initial model. The MI of the covariance between items 2 and 10 exceeded 5 in the last model. Since these items were related to different concepts, the procedure was terminated.

Mean item scores

Table 5 shows the mean scores for items and scales. The maximum mean score was for items 2, 5, and 12 in the PIKQ-UI and items 2 and 6 in the PIKQ-POP.

Table 5 Item and total scores for PIKQ-UI and PIKQ-POP
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toprak Celenay, S., Coban, O., Sahbaz Pirincci, C. et al. Turkish translation of the Prolapse and Incontinence Knowledge Questionnaire: validity and reliability. Int Urogynecol J 30, 2183–2190 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03962-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03962-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation