Quality of Life Research

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 75–83 | Cite as

Reliability and validity of the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

  • Dennis A. Revicki
  • Martha Wood
  • Ingela Wiklund
  • Joseph Crawley


The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) in US patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Five hundred and sixteen adults with predominant heartburn symptoms of GERD were recruited from gastroenterologist and family physician practices and treated with 6 weeks of 150mg ranitidine twice daily to identify poorly responsive symptomatic GERD. The GSRS, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey and the Psychological General Well-being (PGWB) scale were administered at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. Reported ratings of GERD-related symptoms from physician and patient diaries were measured. The GSRS contains five scales: reflux syndrome, abdominal pain, constipation syndrome, diarrhoea syndrome and indigestion syndrome. The internal consistency reliabilities for the GSRS scales ranged from 0.61 to 0.83 and the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.42 to 0.60. The GSRS scale scores were correlated with the SF-36 and PGWB scales and with the number and severity of heartburn symptoms. Patients with two or three clinician-rated GERD-related symptoms reported worse GSRS scale scores compared with patients with fewer symptoms (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in the mean GSRS scale scores were observed between treatment responders and non-responders (p < 0.0001) and patients showing a response to treatment had larger mean changes in their GSRS scales than patients not showing a response to treatment (p < 0.0001). The standardized response means ranged from 0.42 to 1.43 for the GSRS scale scores. It was concluded that the GSRS is a brief, fairly comprehensive assessment of common gastrointestinal symptoms. The GSRS has good reliability and construct validity and the GSRS scales discriminate by GERD symptom severity and are responsive to treatment. The GSRS is a useful patient-rated symptom scale for evaluating the outcomes of treatment for GERD.

GERD GSRS validity reliability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Revicki DA. Health care technology and health-related quality of life. In: Banta D, Luce B eds. Health Care Technology and its Assessment: an International Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993: 114–131.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 835–840.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiklund I. Aspects of quality of life in gastrointestinal disease: some methodological issues. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995; 30(Suppl 208): 129–132.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin C, Marquis P, Bonfils S. A quality of life questionnaire adapted to duodenal ulcer therapeutic trials. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994; 29Suppl 206: 40–43.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irvine EJ. Quality of life-rationale and methods for developing a disease-specific instrument for inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; 28(Suppl 199); 22–27.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drossman DA, Leserman J, Li Z et al. The rating form of IBD patients concerns: a new measure of health status. Psychosom Med 1991; 53: 701–712.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chal KL, Stacey JH, Sacks GE. The effect of ranitidine on symptom relief and quality of life of patients with gastrooesophageal reflux disease. Br J Clin Pract 1995; 49: 73–77.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rush DR, Stelmach WJ, Young TL et al. Clinical effectiveness and quality of life with ranitidine vs placebo in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients: a clinical experience network (CEN) study. J Family Pract 1995; 41: 126–136.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stacey JH, Miocevich ML, Sacks GE. The effect of ranitidine (as effervescent tablets) on the quality of life of GERD patients. Br J Clin Pract 1996; 50: 190–196.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262: 907–913.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B et al. Well-being and gastrointestinal symptoms among patients referred to endoscopy owing to suspected duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995; 30: 1046–1052.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talley NJ, Weaver AL, Zinsmeister AR. Impact of functional dyspepsia on quality of life. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40: 584–589.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drossman DA, Li Z, Toner BB et al. Functional bowel disorders: a multicenter comparison of health status and development of illness severity index. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40: 986–995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1989; 96: 804–810.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Talley NJ, Phillips SF, Melton J III et al. A patient questionnaire to identify bowel disease. Ann Intern Med 1989; 111: 671–674.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Locke GR, Talley NJ, Weaver AL et al. A new questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 539–547.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Svedlund J, Sjodin I, Dotevall G. GSRS-a clinical rating scale for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease. Dig Dis Sci 1988; 33: 129–134.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B et al. Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an improved evaluation of treatment regimens? Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; 28: 681–687.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glise H, Hulterback B, Johansson B. Quality of life assessments in the evaluation of gastrointestinal reflux and peptic ulcer disease before, during and after treatment. Scan J Gastroenterol 1995; 30(Suppl 208): 133–135.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Howland L. Evaluating the psychometric characteristics of the psychological general well-being index with a new response scale. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 417–423.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dupuy H. The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J, eds. Assessment of Quality of Lfe in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Greenwich, CT: Le Jacq Publishing, 1984: 170–183.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dimenas E, Carlsson G, Glise H et al. The relevance of norm values as part of the documentation of quality of life instruments for use in upper gastrointestinal disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31(Suppl 221): 8–13.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Revicki DA, Allen H, Bungay K et al. Responsiveness and calibration of the general well-being adjustment scale in patients with hypertension. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 1333–1342.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bartko J. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 1966; 19: 3–11.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, et al. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992; 30: 917–925.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adelman A, Revicki D, Magaziner J, Hebel R. Abdominal pain in an HMO. Family Med 1995; 27: 321–325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 1
  • Martha Wood
    • 2
  • Ingela Wiklund
    • 3
  • Joseph Crawley
    • 4
  1. 1.MEDTAP International, IncBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Astra Hassle MölndalSweden
  4. 4.Astra Merck Inc.WayneUSA

Personalised recommendations