KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences / 2023 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire

Tuğçe Keziban KURT
Betül TAŞPINAR
Ferruh TASPİNAR
Sayfa
705–712
Yayın Tarihi
2023-05-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: The study's results indicated that the PPIQ-T can be utilized to evaluate patients with CPP in a variety of contexts and for treatment planning.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish translation of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire(PPIQ-T).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Material and Methods: This study was conducted with 110 female patients (mean age of 43.67±11.71years), who were being treated as inpatients or outpatients in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: The study's results indicated that the PPIQ-T can be utilized to evaluate patients with CPP in a variety of contexts and for treatment planning.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Validity and Reliability · Pelvic Pain · Quality of Life

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish translation of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire(PPIQ-T). Material and Methods: This study was conducted with 110 female patients (mean age of 43.67±11.71years), who were being treated as inpatients or outpatients in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. Necessary permission for PPIQ was obtained and translation procedures were applied in terms of cultural adaptation. Test-retest and internal consistency were used for reliability. The correlation between the McGill Pain Instrument(MPQ) and the Short Form-36(SF-36) was looked at to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to test the factorial validity of the PPIQ. Results: Test-retest reliability's intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was 0.95, while the Cronbach alpha value was 0.92. Significant correlation was determined between PPIQ and SF-36 questionnaires (r= 0.62-0.78, p<0.001), and MPQ (r=0.85, p<0.001). The KMO coefficient was 0.87, according to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory Factor Analysis(CFA) values were found Chi-Square as 31.142, df as 18, RMSEA as 0.08, and p<0.05. Conclusion: The study's results indicated that the PPIQ-T can be utilized to evaluate patients with CPP in a variety of contexts and for treatment planning.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KURT, T. K., TAŞPINAR, B., TASPİNAR, F. (2023). Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 705–712. https://ajindex.com/articles/939966

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (17)

  1. Engeler D et al. EAU guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. 2022.
  2. Ahangari A. Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain among women: an updated review. Pain physician 2014;17(2):E141-147
  3. Vincent K. Chronic pelvic pain in women. Postgrad Med J 2009;85(999):24-29
  4. Howard HS. Sexual adjustment counseling for women with chronic pelvic pain. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2012;41(5):692-702
  5. Fall M, Baranowski AP, Elneil S, Engeler D, Hughes J, Messelink EJ et al. EAU guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. Eur Urol 2010;57(1):35-48
  6. Dick ML. Chronic pelvic pain in women: assessment and management. Aust Fam Physician 2004;33(12):971-976
  7. Sewell M, Churilov L, Mooney S, Ma T, Maher P & Grover SR. Chronic pelvic pain–pain catastrophizing, pelvic pain and quality of life. Scand J Pain 2018;18(3):441-448
  8. Cox L, Ayers S, Mala K, Penny J. Chronic pelvic pain and quality of life after laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:214–219
  9. Da Luz RA, de Deus JM & Conde DM. Quality of life and associated factors in Brazilian women with chronic pelvic pain. J Pain Res 2018;11:1367-1374
  10. Grace V & Zondervan K. Chronic pelvic pain in women in New Zealand: comparative well-being, comorbidity, and impact on work and other activities. Health Care Women Int 2006;27(7):585-599
  11. Chalmers KJ, Catley MJ, Evans SF & Moseley GL. Assessing the impact of pelvic pain: development using a patient as expert approach, Rasch analysis, and reliability testing of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. Australian & New Zealand Continence Journal 2016;22(4):91-92
  12. Büyüköztürk Ş. Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi 2002;32(32):470-483
  13. Kimberlin CL & Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65(23):2276-2284
  14. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19(1):231-240
  15. Bryant FB & Yarnold PR. Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). American Psychological Association 1995
  16. Melzack R & Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology 1971;34(1):50-59
  17. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring