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

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.

Keywords

• Validity and Reliability
• Pelvic Pain
• Quality of Life
• Women's Health

References

1. 1. Engeler D et al. EAU guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. 2022. https://uroweb.org/individual-guidelines/non-oncology-guidelines/
2. 2. Ahangari A. Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain among women: an updated review. Pain physician 2014;17(2):E141-147.
3. 3. Vincent K. Chronic pelvic pain in women. Postgrad Med J 2009;85(999):24-29.
4. 4. Howard HS. Sexual adjustment counseling for women with chronic pelvic pain. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2012;41(5):692-702.
5. 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. 6. Dick ML. Chronic pelvic pain in women: assessment and management. Aust Fam Physician 2004;33(12):971-976.
7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Büyüköztürk Ş. Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi 2002;32(32):470-483.
13. 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. 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. 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. 16. Melzack R & Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology 1971;34(1):50-59.
17. 17. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1975;1(3):277-299.
18. 18. Eti-Aslan F. Ağrı değerlendirme yöntemleri. C.Ü. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi 2002;6:9-16.
19. 19. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmaz N & Memiş AK. Form-36'nın (SF-36) Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği: Romatizmal hastalığı olan bir grup hasta ile çalışma. İlaç ve Tedavi Derg 1999;12:102-106.
20. 20. Ware Jr, JE, & Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical care 1992;473-483.
21. 21. Carr AJ, Thompson PW & Kirwan JR. Outcome series series editors: dl scott and a. Silman: quality of life measures. Rheumatology 1996;35(3):275-281.
22. 22. Jamieson DJ & Steege JF. The prevalence of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, pelvic pain, and irritable bowel syndrome in primary care practices. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87(1):55-58.
23. 23. Mathias SD, Kuppermann M, Liberman RF, Lipschutz RC & Steege JF. Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87(3):321-327.
24. 24. Verit FF, Verit A & Yeni E. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction and associated risk factors in women with chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006;274(5):297-302.
25. 25. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH & Kennedy SH. Prevalence and incidence of chronic pelvic pain in primary care: evidence from a national general practice database. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106(11):1149-1155.
26. 26. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Jenkinson CP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH et al. Chronic pelvic pain in the community—symptoms, investigations, and diagnoses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184(6):1149-1155.
27. 27. Gelbaya TA & El-Halwagy HE. Focus on primary care: chronic pelvic pain in women. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56(12):757-764.
28. 28. Gunter J. Chronic pelvic pain: an integrated approach to diagnosis and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003;58(9):615-623.