Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Paper versus web-based administration of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Web-based questionnaires are increasingly employed for clinical research. To investigate whether web-based and paper versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (PFIQ-7) yield similar results, we compared results obtained with these two modes of administration. Women with pelvic floor disorders completed both versions of these questionnaires. Scores between modes of administration were compared using the paired t test and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Among the 52 participants, there were no significant differences in scores or scale scores between the web-based and paper questionnaires. The ICC was 0.91 for the PFDI-20 score and 0.81 for the PFIQ-7 score (p < 0.001 for each). The web-based format was preferred by 22 participants (53%), ten (24%) preferred the paper format, and nine (21%) had no preference. The acceptability and score equivalence recommend these web-based questionnaires as an alternative to paper questionnaires for clinical research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Tayrac R, Picone O, Chauveaud-Lambling A, Fernandez H (2006) A 2-year anatomical and functional assessment of transvaginal rectocele repair using a polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(2):100–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC (2001) Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1388–1395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Contreras R, Nager CW, Luber KM (2006) Parity, mode of delivery, and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 107(6):1253–1260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fitzgerald MP, Janz NK, Wren PA et al (2007) Prolapse severity, symptoms and impact on quality of life among women planning sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 98(1):24–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(1):103–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B (2003) Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma 40(7):751–7620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bushnell DM, Reilly MC, Galani C et al (2006) Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome—Quality of Life Measure, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and the EuroQol. Value Health 9(2):98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R (2005) Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 64(1):80–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, Van Winkle LC, Chastain DC, Hamill-Ruth RJ (2004) Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain 110(1–2):310–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB et al (1999) Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17(3):998–1007

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomi A, Schoenfeld P (2001) A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 39(2):181–189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL (1998) Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280(5365):867–873

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kissinger P, Rice J, Farley T et al (1999) Application of computer-assisted interviews to sexual behavior research. Am J Epidemiol 149(10):950–954

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tourangeau R, Smith T (1996) Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 60(2):275–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Methods of administration. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR (eds) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd edn. Oxford Medical, New York, NY, pp 189–205

    Google Scholar 

  16. Baron G, Tubach F, Ravaud P, Logeart I, Dougados M (2007) Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 57(4):633–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD045806), The American Urogynecologic Society, and The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD, 21224, USA

    Victoria L. Handa

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Matthew D. Barber

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA

    Stephen B. Young, Michael P. Aronson & Abraham Morse

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Geoffrey W. Cundiff

Authors
  1. Victoria L. Handa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew D. Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen B. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael P. Aronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abraham Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Geoffrey W. Cundiff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria L. Handa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Handa, V.L., Barber, M.D., Young, S.B. et al. Paper versus web-based administration of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Int Urogynecol J 19, 1331–1335 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0651-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0651-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation