Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a Dutch version of the prolapse quality-of-life (P-QoL) questionnaire

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to test validity, reliability and responsiveness of a Dutch version of a prolapse quality-of-life questionnaire (P-QoL).

Methods

P-QoL was translated into Dutch and adjusted by a panel of five experts. The scores of the final version were compared between symptomatic (n = 160) and asymptomatic (n = 80) patients and with findings on vaginal examination (pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q)). In terms of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated, and a test–retest (n = 20) was performed. Responsiveness to treatment was assessed by comparing pre- and postoperative scores in 45 patients.

Results

Total scores for each P-QoL domain were different between symptomatic and asymptomatic women (p < 0.001). Severity according to P-QoL correlated well with POP-Q findings. Cronbach’s alphas showed internal consistency within the domains. Test–retest reliability was high. Pre- and postoperative scores for each domain were significantly different (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The Dutch version of P-QoL is valid, reliable and responsive to assess quality-of-life and symptoms in Dutch-speaking patients with urogenital prolapse.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

EF:

Effect size

IIQ:

Incontinence impact questionnaire

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

POP-Q:

Pelvic organ prolapse quantification

P-QoL:

Prolapse quality-of-life questionnaire

QoL:

Quality-of-life

SD:

Standard deviation

SRM:

Standardised response mean

UDI:

Urogenital distress inventory

References

  1. Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J (2003) Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(2):372–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QoL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 6:176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC (2001) Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1388–1395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Digesu GA, Santamato S, Khullar V, Santillo V, Digesu A, Cormio G et al (2003) Validation of an Italian version of the prolapse quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 106(2):184–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cam C, Sakalli M, Ay P, Aran T, Cam M, Karateke A (2007) Validation of the prolapse quality of life questionnaire (P-QoL) in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 135(1):132–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fukumoto Y, Uesaka Y, Yamamoto K, Ito S, Yamanaka M, Takeyama M, Noma M (2008) Assessment of guality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse: conditional translation and trial of P-Qol for use in Japan. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 99(3):531–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lenz F, Stammer H, Brocker K, Rak M, Scherg H, Sohn C (2009) Validation of a German version of the P-QoL Questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0809-x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Messick S (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into scoring meaning. Am Psychol 9:741–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moons P, Marquet K, Budts W, De Geest S (2004) Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation on Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) in congenital heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2:27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardisation of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carmines E, Zeller R (1979) Reliability and validity assessment: quantitative applications in the social science. Sage, Beverley Hills

    Google Scholar 

  14. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Rhys Willisams G (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:42s–158s

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bugg GJ, Kiff ES, Hosker G (2001) A new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence. BJOG 108(10):1057–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91(11):1500–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA (1994) Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group. Qual Life Res 3(5):291–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP (2003) Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn 22(2):97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V (2005) The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life. BJOG 112(7):971–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fitzgerald MP, Janz NK, Wren PA, Wei JT, Weber AM, Ghetti C, Cundiff GW (2007) Pelvic floor disorders network. Prolapse severity, symptoms and impact on quality of life among women planning sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 98(1):24–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lowenstein L, FitzGerald MP, Kenton K, Dooley Y, Templehof M, Mueller ER et al (2008) Patient-selected goals: the fourth dimension in assessment of pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(1):81–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. BJOG 104:82–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wiskind K, Creighton SM, Stanton SL (1992) The incidence of genital prolapse after Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:399–404

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Jan-Paul Roovers for his assistance and review of this manuscript and our colleagues at the Gynaecology Department for recruiting patients for this study.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pelvic Floor Unit, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Filip Claerhout, Jasper Verguts, Dirk De Ridder & Jan Deprest

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AZ Saint-Lucas, Brugge, Belgium

    Filip Claerhout & Sophie Ghesquiere

  3. Center for Health Services and Nursing Research, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Philip Moons

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division Woman and Child, UZ Gasthuisberg, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Deprest

Authors
  1. Filip Claerhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip Moons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophie Ghesquiere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jasper Verguts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dirk De Ridder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Deprest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Deprest.

Appendix

Appendix

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Claerhout, F., Moons, P., Ghesquiere, S. et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a Dutch version of the prolapse quality-of-life (P-QoL) questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J 21, 569–578 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1081-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1081-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation