奈梅亨问卷:一种有效的过度换气综合征测量方法

Q3 Health Professions New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2019-11-25 DOI:10.15619/nzjp/47.3.04
Vickie Li Ogilvie, N. Kayes, P. Kersten
{"title":"奈梅亨问卷:一种有效的过度换气综合征测量方法","authors":"Vickie Li Ogilvie, N. Kayes, P. Kersten","doi":"10.15619/nzjp/47.3.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hyperventilation syndrome is often undiagnosed due to its multi-systemic and 5 apparently unrelated symptoms. The Nijmegen Questionnaire is used by clinicians to 6 assess susceptible individuals, based on self-reporting symptoms attributed to 7 hyperventilation syndrome. However, evidence of psychometric properties of this 8 questionnaire is lacking. This study investigated two types of validity, using 9 interviews and Rasch analysis. Data showed that the Nijmegen Questionnaire met 10 criteria for content validity but not for structural validity. Content validity was 11 supported by a high matching percentage between the symptoms identified within 12 interview data and the current items on the Nijmegen Questionnaire (94%). Reported 13 symptoms from study participants were conceptually congruent with most of the 14 questionnaire items with minor language inconsistencies between patients and 15 clinicians. Rasch analysis indicated a poor fit of the Nijmegen Questionnaire to the 16 Rasch model, demonstrating poor structural validity. This study also developed a 17 revised version of the Nijmegen Questionnaire, which did meet criteria for structural 18 validity. Subsequently, a conversion table was created for transforming raw total 19 scores of the questionnaire in the clinical and research settings. Physiotherapists 20 should use the revised 15-item Nijmegen Questionnaire for clinical and research 21 purposes since it provides more accurate representation of the severity of patients’ 22 symptoms than the original scoring.","PeriodicalId":52167,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Nijmegen Questionnaire: A valid measure for hyperventilation syndrome\",\"authors\":\"Vickie Li Ogilvie, N. Kayes, P. Kersten\",\"doi\":\"10.15619/nzjp/47.3.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Hyperventilation syndrome is often undiagnosed due to its multi-systemic and 5 apparently unrelated symptoms. The Nijmegen Questionnaire is used by clinicians to 6 assess susceptible individuals, based on self-reporting symptoms attributed to 7 hyperventilation syndrome. However, evidence of psychometric properties of this 8 questionnaire is lacking. This study investigated two types of validity, using 9 interviews and Rasch analysis. Data showed that the Nijmegen Questionnaire met 10 criteria for content validity but not for structural validity. Content validity was 11 supported by a high matching percentage between the symptoms identified within 12 interview data and the current items on the Nijmegen Questionnaire (94%). Reported 13 symptoms from study participants were conceptually congruent with most of the 14 questionnaire items with minor language inconsistencies between patients and 15 clinicians. Rasch analysis indicated a poor fit of the Nijmegen Questionnaire to the 16 Rasch model, demonstrating poor structural validity. This study also developed a 17 revised version of the Nijmegen Questionnaire, which did meet criteria for structural 18 validity. Subsequently, a conversion table was created for transforming raw total 19 scores of the questionnaire in the clinical and research settings. Physiotherapists 20 should use the revised 15-item Nijmegen Questionnaire for clinical and research 21 purposes since it provides more accurate representation of the severity of patients’ 22 symptoms than the original scoring.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15619/nzjp/47.3.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15619/nzjp/47.3.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

过度换气综合征由于其多系统和5种明显不相关的症状而常常无法诊断。奈梅亨问卷被临床医生用来评估易感个体,基于过度通气综合征的自我报告症状。然而,这8份问卷的心理测量特性的证据是缺乏的。本研究采用9次访谈和Rasch分析,调查了两种效度类型。数据显示,奈梅亨问卷符合10项内容效度标准,但不符合结构效度标准。在12个访谈数据中确定的症状与奈梅亨问卷上的当前项目之间的高匹配百分比(94%)支持内容效度。研究参与者报告的13种症状在概念上与14个问卷项目中的大多数一致,患者和15名临床医生之间存在轻微的语言不一致。Rasch分析显示,Nijmegen问卷与16 Rasch模型拟合较差,结构效度较差。本研究还开发了修订后的奈梅亨问卷,该问卷确实符合结构效度标准。随后,创建了一个转换表,用于在临床和研究设置中转换问卷的原始总19分。物理治疗师应将修订后的15项奈梅亨问卷用于临床和研究目的,因为它比原来的评分更准确地反映了患者症状的严重程度。
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
The Nijmegen Questionnaire: A valid measure for hyperventilation syndrome
Hyperventilation syndrome is often undiagnosed due to its multi-systemic and 5 apparently unrelated symptoms. The Nijmegen Questionnaire is used by clinicians to 6 assess susceptible individuals, based on self-reporting symptoms attributed to 7 hyperventilation syndrome. However, evidence of psychometric properties of this 8 questionnaire is lacking. This study investigated two types of validity, using 9 interviews and Rasch analysis. Data showed that the Nijmegen Questionnaire met 10 criteria for content validity but not for structural validity. Content validity was 11 supported by a high matching percentage between the symptoms identified within 12 interview data and the current items on the Nijmegen Questionnaire (94%). Reported 13 symptoms from study participants were conceptually congruent with most of the 14 questionnaire items with minor language inconsistencies between patients and 15 clinicians. Rasch analysis indicated a poor fit of the Nijmegen Questionnaire to the 16 Rasch model, demonstrating poor structural validity. This study also developed a 17 revised version of the Nijmegen Questionnaire, which did meet criteria for structural 18 validity. Subsequently, a conversion table was created for transforming raw total 19 scores of the questionnaire in the clinical and research settings. Physiotherapists 20 should use the revised 15-item Nijmegen Questionnaire for clinical and research 21 purposes since it provides more accurate representation of the severity of patients’ 22 symptoms than the original scoring.
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
New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy
New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Health navigation for people experiencing newly acquired long-term physical disability: A realist-informed integrative review How do novice physiotherapists describe their experiences of workplace support? The relevance of research in clinical practice Physiotherapy management of adults with asthma: A survey of New Zealand practice Patient expectations of benefit from physiotherapy and relationship to self-reported outcomes: A pilot study
×
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