Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptation and validation of the King’s Health Questionnaire in Portuguese women with urinary incontinence

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Urinary incontinence (UI) in women is a problem of public health with psychological repercussions in various contexts of life. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) in women with UI to Portugal.

Methods

For the adaptation, a multistep forward–back translation protocol was used. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and the Satisfaction with Life Scale were used to validate the KHQ. The evaluation of the psychometric properties involved the assessment of validity, reliability, and test–retest stability in 103 women. A factor analysis was conducted to explore the underlying factor structure of KHQ. Inter-domain correlation was calculated for convergent and discriminant validity assessment.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis identified three factors “personal limitations and daily life”, “emotions and social relationships” and “urinary symptoms”. Indicators of test–retest stability showed almost perfect agreement with a mean intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.937. Internal consistency was found to be high (Cronbach’s alfa > 0.7). Furthermore, the Portuguese version of the KHQ significantly correlates with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, supporting construct validity.

Conclusions

The Portuguese version of the KHQ was found to be a valid and reliable measure of the quality of life in women with UI in Portugal, being relevant to both clinical practice and research.

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

UI:

Urinary incontinence

QoL:

Quality of life

KHQ:

King’s Health Questionnaire

SD:

Standard deviation

Cronbach α:

Cronbach alfa

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

CI:

Confidence intervals

References

  1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson S (2005) Stress urinary incontinence: new management options. Curr Med Res Opin 21(10):1669–1675. doi:10.1185/030079905X65565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bernards A, Berghmans B, Slieker-ten Hove M, Bart Staal J, de Bie R, Hendriks E (2014) Dutch guidelines for physiotherapy in patients with stress urinary incontinence: an update. Int Urogynecol J 25:171–179. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2219-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross S, Soroka D, Karahalios A, Glazener CM, Hay-Smith EJ, Drutz HP (2006) Incontinence-specific quality of life measures used in trials of treatments for female urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 17(3):272–285. doi:10.1007/s00192-005-1357-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(12):1374–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Avery KN, Bosch JL, Gotoh M, Naughton M, Jackson S, Radley SC, Valiquette L, Batista J, Donovan JL (2007) Questionnaires to assess urinary and anal incontinence: review and recommendations. J Urol 177(1):39–49. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.075

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M (2007) Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  8. MAPI (2011) King’s Health Questionnaire—scaling and scoring. MAPI Research Trust, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  9. Donovan J, Badia X, Corcos J, Gotoh M, Kelleher C, Naughton M, Shaw C, Lukacs B (2001) Symptom and quality of life assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Consultation on Incontinence, Plymouth, 2002. Health Publication, Plymouth, pp 267–316

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kelleher C (1997) Quality of life. In: Cardozo L (ed) Urogynecology. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 673–688

    Google Scholar 

  11. Badia Llach X, Castro Diaz D, Conejero Sugrañes J (2000) Validity of the King’s Health questionnaire in the assessment of quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence. The King’s Group. Med Clin (Barc) 114(17):647–652

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tamanini J, D’Ancona C, Botega N, Netto N (2003) Validação do “King’s Health Questionnaire” para o português em Mulheres com Incontinência urinária. Rev Saude Publica 37(2):203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Toozs-Hobson PM (1995) Quality of life and urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 7(5):404–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reese PR, Pleil AM, Okano GJ, Kelleher CJ (2003) Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Qual Life Res 12(4):427–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kelleher C (2000) Quality of life and urinary incontinence. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 14(2):363–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Simões A (1993) São os homens mais agressivos que as mulheres? Rev Port Pedagogia 3:387–404

    Google Scholar 

  18. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 49(1):71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Neto F (1993) The satisfaction with life scale: psychometrics properties in an adolescent sample. J Youth Adolesc 22:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Streiner D, Norman G (1995) Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fayers P, Machin D (2007) Quality of life the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. McDowell IF (2006) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionaires. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen J (1988) Differences between correlation coefficients. In: Cohen J (ed) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 109–143

    Google Scholar 

  25. Homma Y, Uemura S (2004) Use of the short form of King’s Health Questionnaire to measure quality of life in patients with an overactive bladder. BJU Int 93(7):1009–1013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Uemura S, Homma Y (2004) Reliability and validity of King’s Health Questionnaire in patients with symptoms of overactive bladder with urge incontinence in Japan. Neurourol Urodyn 23(2):94–100. doi:10.1002/nau.10169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Diener E, Scollon C, Lucas R (2003) The evolving concept of subjective well-being: the multifaceted nature of happiness. Adv Cell Aging Gerontol 15:187–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E (1996) Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(3):616–628

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tamanini JT, Dambros M, D’Ancona CA, Palma PC, Botega NJ, Rios LA, Gomes CM, Baracat F, Bezerra CA, Netto NR Jr (2004) Concurrent validity, internal consistency and responsiveness of the Portuguese version of the King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) in women after stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Braz J Urol 30(6):479–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital of S. João, Porto, Portugal

    Rui Viana, Sara Viana & Teresa Mascarenhas

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal

    Rui Viana & Sara Viana

  3. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences , University Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Félix Neto

  4. Faculty of Medicine, University Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Teresa Mascarenhas

Authors
  1. Rui Viana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara Viana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Félix Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresa Mascarenhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rui Viana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viana, R., Viana, S., Neto, F. et al. Adaptation and validation of the King’s Health Questionnaire in Portuguese women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 26, 1027–1033 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2628-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2628-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation