荷兰版莱斯特咳嗽问卷的信度和效度。

Arnold N Huisman, Mei-Zei Wu, Steven M Uil, Jan Willem K van den Berg
{"title":"荷兰版莱斯特咳嗽问卷的信度和效度。","authors":"Arnold N Huisman,&nbsp;Mei-Zei Wu,&nbsp;Steven M Uil,&nbsp;Jan Willem K van den Berg","doi":"10.1186/1745-9974-3-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic cough is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life. Currently, no health status measure specific for chronic cough exists in the Netherlands. Thus we developed a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and tested its scaling and clinical properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LCQ was adapted for Dutch conditions following a forward-backward translation procedure. All patients referred to our cough clinic between May 2004 and February 2005 completed five questionnaires, the LCQ, the modified Borg score for cough, the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Global Rating of Change (GRC) upon presentation, after two weeks and after 6 months. Concurrent validation, internal consistency, repeatability and responsiveness were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the concurrent validation the correlation coefficients (n = 152 patients) between the LCQ and the other outcome measures varied between 0.22 and 0.61. The internal consistency of the LCQ (n = 58) was high for each of the domains with a Crohnbach's alpha coefficient between 0.77 and 0.91. The two week repeatability of the LCQ in patients with no change in cough (n = 48) was high with intraclass correlation coefficients varying between 0.86 and 0.93. Patients who reported an improvement in cough (n = 140) after 6 months demonstrated significant improvement on each of the domains of the LCQ.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Dutch version of the LCQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure (changes of) health status in patients with chronic cough.</p>","PeriodicalId":10747,"journal":{"name":"Cough (London, England)","volume":"3 ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1745-9974-3-3","citationCount":"38","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and validity of a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"Arnold N Huisman,&nbsp;Mei-Zei Wu,&nbsp;Steven M Uil,&nbsp;Jan Willem K van den Berg\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1745-9974-3-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic cough is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life. Currently, no health status measure specific for chronic cough exists in the Netherlands. Thus we developed a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and tested its scaling and clinical properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LCQ was adapted for Dutch conditions following a forward-backward translation procedure. All patients referred to our cough clinic between May 2004 and February 2005 completed five questionnaires, the LCQ, the modified Borg score for cough, the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Global Rating of Change (GRC) upon presentation, after two weeks and after 6 months. Concurrent validation, internal consistency, repeatability and responsiveness were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the concurrent validation the correlation coefficients (n = 152 patients) between the LCQ and the other outcome measures varied between 0.22 and 0.61. The internal consistency of the LCQ (n = 58) was high for each of the domains with a Crohnbach's alpha coefficient between 0.77 and 0.91. The two week repeatability of the LCQ in patients with no change in cough (n = 48) was high with intraclass correlation coefficients varying between 0.86 and 0.93. Patients who reported an improvement in cough (n = 140) after 6 months demonstrated significant improvement on each of the domains of the LCQ.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Dutch version of the LCQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure (changes of) health status in patients with chronic cough.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cough (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1745-9974-3-3\",\"citationCount\":\"38\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cough (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-9974-3-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cough (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-9974-3-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

摘要

背景:慢性咳嗽是一种常见的疾病,对生活质量有重大影响。目前,荷兰没有专门针对慢性咳嗽的健康状况措施。因此,我们开发了荷兰版的莱斯特咳嗽问卷(LCQ),并测试了其缩放和临床特性。方法:LCQ适用于荷兰条件,采用前向向后翻译程序。2004年5月至2005年2月间,所有到我们咳嗽门诊就诊的患者分别在两周和6个月后完成了五份问卷,LCQ、改进的博格咳嗽评分、简短表格36 (SF-36)、医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS)和全球变化评级(GRC)。测定并发验证、内部一致性、重复性和响应性。结果:对于并发验证,LCQ与其他结局测量的相关系数(n = 152例)在0.22 ~ 0.61之间变化。各域LCQ (n = 58)的内部一致性较高,Crohnbach’s alpha系数在0.77 ~ 0.91之间。咳嗽无变化的患者(n = 48) LCQ的两周重复性较高,组内相关系数在0.86 ~ 0.93之间。6个月后报告咳嗽改善的患者(n = 140)在LCQ的每个域上都有显着改善。结论:荷兰语版LCQ是一份有效、可靠的慢性咳嗽患者健康状况(变化)问卷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability and validity of a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire.

Background: Chronic cough is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life. Currently, no health status measure specific for chronic cough exists in the Netherlands. Thus we developed a Dutch version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and tested its scaling and clinical properties.

Methods: The LCQ was adapted for Dutch conditions following a forward-backward translation procedure. All patients referred to our cough clinic between May 2004 and February 2005 completed five questionnaires, the LCQ, the modified Borg score for cough, the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Global Rating of Change (GRC) upon presentation, after two weeks and after 6 months. Concurrent validation, internal consistency, repeatability and responsiveness were determined.

Results: For the concurrent validation the correlation coefficients (n = 152 patients) between the LCQ and the other outcome measures varied between 0.22 and 0.61. The internal consistency of the LCQ (n = 58) was high for each of the domains with a Crohnbach's alpha coefficient between 0.77 and 0.91. The two week repeatability of the LCQ in patients with no change in cough (n = 48) was high with intraclass correlation coefficients varying between 0.86 and 0.93. Patients who reported an improvement in cough (n = 140) after 6 months demonstrated significant improvement on each of the domains of the LCQ.

Conclusion: The Dutch version of the LCQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure (changes of) health status in patients with chronic cough.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers. Standardized method for solubility and storage of capsaicin-based solutions for cough induction. On the definition of chronic cough and current treatment pathways: an international qualitative study. Effect of acid suppression therapy on gastroesophageal reflux and cough in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an intervention study. Severity of cough in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is associated with MUC5 B genotype.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1