{"title":"月经困扰问卷中文版的翻译与验证。","authors":"Hsin-Huei Chang, Ya-Chien Hsu, Wen-Ling Liao, Chyi Lo, Cherry Yin-Yi Chang, Chun-Hui Liao, Shan-Yu Su","doi":"10.1080/01443615.2024.2320844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) is a commonly used questionnaire that assesses various symptoms and distress associated with the menstrual cycle in women. However, the questionnaire has not been completely translated into Chinese with rigorous reliability and validity testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study translated the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire Form Cycle (MDQC) from English into Chinese: MDQCC in two stages. First, it was translated forward and backward using Jones' model; second, to test the validity and reliability, 210 Chinese-speaking women were recruited through online announcements and posters posted between June 2019 and May 2020. Expert validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and factorial validity were determined using content validity index (CVI), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), composite reliability (CR), and exploratory factor analysis, respectively. For concurrent criterion validity, MDQCC score was compared with three existing pain scales. Reliability was evaluated using internal consistency across items and two-week test-retest reliability over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CVI for content validity was .92. Item-CVI for expert validities among the 46 items ranged from .50 - 1; scale-CVI for the eight subscales, from .87 - 1; ICC, from .650 - .897; and CRs, from .303 - .881. Pearson correlation coefficients between MDQCC and short-form McGill pain questionnaire, present pain intensity, and visual analog scale scores were .640, .519, and .575, respectively. Cronbach's α for internal consistency was satisfactory (.932). ICC for test-retest reliability was .852 for the entire MDQCC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MDQCC was valid and reliable for Mandarin Chinese-speaking women. It can be used to evaluate female psychiatric symptoms related to the menstrual cycle in future work.</p>","PeriodicalId":16627,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"44 1","pages":"2320844"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the menstrual distress questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"Hsin-Huei Chang, Ya-Chien Hsu, Wen-Ling Liao, Chyi Lo, Cherry Yin-Yi Chang, Chun-Hui Liao, Shan-Yu Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01443615.2024.2320844\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) is a commonly used questionnaire that assesses various symptoms and distress associated with the menstrual cycle in women. However, the questionnaire has not been completely translated into Chinese with rigorous reliability and validity testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study translated the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire Form Cycle (MDQC) from English into Chinese: MDQCC in two stages. First, it was translated forward and backward using Jones' model; second, to test the validity and reliability, 210 Chinese-speaking women were recruited through online announcements and posters posted between June 2019 and May 2020. Expert validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and factorial validity were determined using content validity index (CVI), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), composite reliability (CR), and exploratory factor analysis, respectively. For concurrent criterion validity, MDQCC score was compared with three existing pain scales. Reliability was evaluated using internal consistency across items and two-week test-retest reliability over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CVI for content validity was .92. Item-CVI for expert validities among the 46 items ranged from .50 - 1; scale-CVI for the eight subscales, from .87 - 1; ICC, from .650 - .897; and CRs, from .303 - .881. Pearson correlation coefficients between MDQCC and short-form McGill pain questionnaire, present pain intensity, and visual analog scale scores were .640, .519, and .575, respectively. Cronbach's α for internal consistency was satisfactory (.932). ICC for test-retest reliability was .852 for the entire MDQCC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MDQCC was valid and reliable for Mandarin Chinese-speaking women. It can be used to evaluate female psychiatric symptoms related to the menstrual cycle in future work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"2320844\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2024.2320844\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2024.2320844","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the menstrual distress questionnaire.
Background: The Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) is a commonly used questionnaire that assesses various symptoms and distress associated with the menstrual cycle in women. However, the questionnaire has not been completely translated into Chinese with rigorous reliability and validity testing.
Methods: This study translated the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire Form Cycle (MDQC) from English into Chinese: MDQCC in two stages. First, it was translated forward and backward using Jones' model; second, to test the validity and reliability, 210 Chinese-speaking women were recruited through online announcements and posters posted between June 2019 and May 2020. Expert validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and factorial validity were determined using content validity index (CVI), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), composite reliability (CR), and exploratory factor analysis, respectively. For concurrent criterion validity, MDQCC score was compared with three existing pain scales. Reliability was evaluated using internal consistency across items and two-week test-retest reliability over time.
Results: The CVI for content validity was .92. Item-CVI for expert validities among the 46 items ranged from .50 - 1; scale-CVI for the eight subscales, from .87 - 1; ICC, from .650 - .897; and CRs, from .303 - .881. Pearson correlation coefficients between MDQCC and short-form McGill pain questionnaire, present pain intensity, and visual analog scale scores were .640, .519, and .575, respectively. Cronbach's α for internal consistency was satisfactory (.932). ICC for test-retest reliability was .852 for the entire MDQCC.
Conclusion: MDQCC was valid and reliable for Mandarin Chinese-speaking women. It can be used to evaluate female psychiatric symptoms related to the menstrual cycle in future work.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology represents an established forum for the entire field of obstetrics and gynaecology, publishing a broad range of original, peer-reviewed papers, from scientific and clinical research to reviews relevant to practice. It also includes occasional supplements on clinical symposia. The journal is read widely by trainees in our specialty and we acknowledge a major role in education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Past and present editors have recognized the difficulties that junior doctors encounter in achieving their first publications and spend time advising authors during their initial attempts at submission. The journal continues to attract a world-wide readership thanks to the emphasis on practical applicability and its excellent record of drawing on an international base of authors.