盆底障碍中文量表信度效度分析

发布时间：2018-05-09 00:18

本文选题：盆底功能障碍简表 + 泌尿生殖障碍简表　；参考：《福建医科大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：通过跨文化适应法翻译英文版盆底功能障碍简表（PFDI-20）和泌尿生殖障碍简表（UDI-6）并对中文版进行信度、效度、敏感性分析。方法: （1）研究对象：随机选取南京军区福州总院妇产科门诊2013年2月至2013年12月符合纳入标准的116例盆腔器官脱垂患者和120例尿失禁患者；（2）翻译：遵循Beaton等提出的问卷跨文化适应指导：初译，，回译，综合，再修改，预试验。（3）统计学方法：验证PFDI-20中文简体版和UDI-6中文简体版的信度、效度、敏感性。结果: 第一部分：PFDI-20中文简体版信度效度分析（1）病例特征：本研究纳入116例盆腔器官脱垂患者，I度20例，II度13例，III度20例，IV度63例。合并尿失禁43例，合并粪失禁6例。（2）内部一致性：Cronbach α系数为0.790-0.879（0.7），表明量表各条目之间相关性强。（3）重测信度：30例患者第2周再次填写PFDI-20，同类相关系数ICC为0.776-0.818（0.7），表明该问卷稳定度好。（4）结构效度：用探索性因子分析评价。公因子方差为0.524-0.890（0.4），累计贡献率为68.225%（50%），载荷值0.484-0.938(0.4)，该问卷能够反映量表制作者的期望特征。（5）效标效度：PFDI-20和PFIQ-7的Spearman相关系数值为0.722-0.748(0.7, P0.05)，PFDI-20与PFIQ-7呈良好正相关。（6）敏感性：35例子宫阴道脱垂患者术后3-6月再次完成PFDI-20中文版，术前术后得分行配对T检验，P0.05，差异有统计学意义，表明该问卷敏感性良好。第二部分：UDI-6中文简体版信度效度分析（1）病例特征：本研究共纳入120例尿失禁患者，71例压力性尿失禁，12例急迫性尿失禁，33例混合性尿失禁，4例其他类型尿失禁。（2）内部一致性：Cronbach α系数为0.703-0.814（0.7）；表明量表各条目之间相关性强。（3）重测信度：20例UI患者在第2周再次完成UDI-6，ICC为0.726-0.846(0.7)，表明该问卷稳定性好。（4）结构效度：公因子方差为0.568-0.812（0.4），公因子累计贡献率为70.445%（50%），因子载荷值0.695-0.901（0.4），表明该量表符合原量表制作者的理论期望特征。（5）效标效度：UDI-6各量表与IIQ-7的Spearman相关系数0.415-0.623(0.4-0.7,P0.05)，两者呈中等正相关。（6）敏感性：25例尿失禁患者术后3-6个月再次完成UDI-6，术前、术后UDI-6得分进行配对T检验，P0.05，差异有统计学意义，表明该问卷敏感性良好。结论: （1）PFDI-20、UDI-6中文简体版具有良好的信度、效度、敏感性。（2）它们能够分别用于评价盆腔器官脱垂和尿失禁对患者生活质量的影响。（3）它们能够作为术前病情评估和术后疗效评价的重要手段。
[Abstract]:Objective: The English version of PFDI-20 and UDI-6 of genitourinary disorders were translated by cross-cultural adaptation. The reliability, validity and sensitivity of the Chinese version were analyzed. Methods: Subjects: 116 patients with pelvic organ prolapse and 120 patients with urinary incontinence were randomly selected from outpatient department of gynecology and obstetrics department of Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing military region from February 2013 to December 2013. Translation: follow the cross-cultural guidance provided by Beaton et al.: first translation, back translation, synthesis, revision, pre-experiment. Statistical method: to verify the reliability, validity and sensitivity of PFDI-20 simplified Chinese version and UDI-6 simplified Chinese version. Results: Part one: reliability and validity Analysis of the Chinese simplified version of PFDI-20 (1) case characteristics: this study included 116 patients with pelvic organ prolapse. There were 20 patients with grade I grade I, 13 patients with grade II, 20 patients with grade III and 63 patients with grade IV. There were 43 cases with urinary incontinence and 6 cases with fecal incontinence. (2) the internal consistency is 0.790-0.87970.The coefficient of internal consistency is 0.790-0.8797.The result shows that there is a strong correlation among the items in the scale. The reliability of retest 30 patients was confirmed by filling in PFDI-20 again in the second week. The correlation coefficient of the same type ICC was 0.776-0.8180.70, which indicated that the questionnaire was stable. Structural validity: evaluated by exploratory factor analysis. The variance of the common factor was 0.524-0.890, the cumulative contribution rate was 68.2250.50 and the load value was 0.484-0.9380.The questionnaire could reflect the expected characteristics of the producer of the scale. The Spearman correlation coefficient between PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 was 0.722-0.7480.The correlation coefficient between PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 was positive. Sensitivity: 35 cases of uterine vaginal prolapse completed the Chinese version of PFDI-20 again 3 to 6 months after operation. The difference was statistically significant (P 0.05), which indicated that the sensitivity of the questionnaire was good. Part two: reliability and validity of the simplified version of UDI-6 Case characteristics: a total of 120 patients with urinary incontinence were included in this study. There were 71 patients with stress urinary incontinence, 12 patients with urgent urinary incontinence, 33 patients with mixed urinary incontinence and 4 patients with other types of urinary incontinence. (2) the internal consistency: Cronbach 伪 coefficient was 0.703-0.8140.70, which indicated that there was a strong correlation among the items in the scale. In the second week, the UDI-6 ICC was 0.726-0.846 / 0. 7, which indicated that the questionnaire was stable. (4) structural validity: the variance of the common factor was 0.568-0.8120.40.The cumulative contribution rate of the common factor was 70.445, and the factor load value was 0.695-0.9010.0.40, which indicated that the scale accorded with the theoretical expectation characteristics of the original scale maker. (5) the validity of the scale: UDI-6 was positively correlated with the Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.415-0.6230.4-0.7P0.05in IIQ-7. Sensitivity: 25 patients with urinary incontinence completed UDI-6 again 3-6 months after operation. Before and after operation, the UDI-6 score was matched with T test (P0.05), the difference was statistically significant, which indicated that the questionnaire had a good sensitivity. Conclusion: The simplified version of PFDI-20 / UDI-6 has good reliability, validity and sensitivity. They can be used to evaluate the effects of pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence on patients' quality of life. They can be used as an important means to evaluate the preoperative and postoperative outcomes.
【学位授予单位】：福建医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R711.5

【参考文献】