Validity and reliability of the modified manchester health questionnaire in assessing patients with fecal incontinence

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 323-334

  Kwon, Soo ^a   Visco, Anthony G ^a   Fitzgerald, Mary P ^b   Ye, Wen ^c   Whitehead, William E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Fecal incontinence; Health questionnaires; Health surveys; Quality of life; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; FECES INCONTINENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MODIFIED MANCHESTER HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TECHNIQUE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 17744363267     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-0899-y     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. JF Johanson J Lafferty 1996 Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction Am J Gastroenterol 91 33 6
2. R Nelson N Norton E Cautley S Furner 1995 Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence JAMA 274 559 61
3. R Nelson S Furner V Jesudason 1998 Fecal incontinence in Wisconsin nursing homes: prevalence and associations Dis Colon Rectum 41 1226 9
4. CJ Vaizey E Carapeti JA Cahill MA Kamm 1999 Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems Gut 44 77 80
5. JM Jorge SD Wexner 1993 Etiology and management of fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 36 77 97
6. M Pescatori G Anastasio C Bottini A Mentasti 1992 New grading and scoring for anal incontinence: evaluation of 335 patients Dis Colon Rectum 35 482 7
7. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman 1999 Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index Dis Colon Rectum 42 1525 32
8. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman 2000 Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 43 9 16
9. GJ Bug ES Kiff G Hosker 2001 A new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence BJOG 108 1057 67
10. X Badia Llach D Castro Diaz J Conejero Sugranes 2000 Validity of the King's Health questionnaire in the assessment of quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence. The King's Group Med Clin (Barc) 114 647 52
11. AH Sultan MA Kamm CN Hudson JM Thomas CI Bartram 1993 Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery N Engl J Med 329 1905 11
12. J Zetterstrom A Lopez B Anzen M Norman B Holmstrom A Mellgren 1999 Anal sphincter tears at vaginal delivery: risk factors and clinical outcome of primary repair Obstet Gynecol 94 21 8
13. 1. Rockwood TH, Kane RL, Lowry A. Mode of administration considerations in the development of condition specific quality of life scales. In: 7th Health Surveys Conference. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.
14. FJ Fowler Jr AM Roman ZX Di 1998 Mode effects in a survey of medicare prostate surgery patients Public Opin Q 62 29 46
15. Blalock HM. Measurement in the social sciences: theories and strategies. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974:464.
16. Campbell DT, Overman ES. Methodology and epistemology for social science: selected papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988:609.
17. Campbell DT, Russo MJ. Social measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001:509.
18. Dillman DA. Mail and electronic surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1999.
19. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978:325.
20. N Schwarz 1991 The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement Appl Cogn Psychol 5 193 212
21. Dillman DA, Sangster, RL, Tarnai, J, Rockwood, TH. Understanding differences in people's answers to telephone and mail surveys. In: Braverman, MT and Slater JK, eds. Advances in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996; 70: 110.
22. TH Rockwood RL Sangster DA Dillman 1997 The effect of response categories on questionnaire answers: context and mode effects Sociol Methods Res 26 118 40
23. Groves RM, Dillman, DA, Etlinge, JL, Little, RJA. Survey nonresponse. Wiley series in survey methodology. New York: Wiley, 2002:500.
24. Groves RM, Beimer, PP, Lyberg, LE, Massey, JT, Nichools, WLI, Waksberg, J. Telephone survey methodology. New York: Wiley, 1988:581.
25. Groves RM. Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley, 1989:590.
26. Groves RM, Couper M. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Survey methodology section. New York: Wiley, 1998:344.
27. Biemer PP, Groves, RM, Lyberg, LE, Mathiowitz, NA, Sudman, S. Measurement errors in surveys. New York: Wiley, 1991:760.
28. Lyberg L. Survey measurement and process quality. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Applied probability and statistics. New York: Wiley, 1997:777.
29. Martin E (2004) "Presidental address: unfinished business" Public Opin 68(3): 439-50
30. Schwarz N, Sudman, S. Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992:353.
31. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
32. Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996:304.
33. Sirken MG. Cognition and survey research. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Survey methodology section. New York: Wiley, 1999:395.
34. N Schwarz H Bless G Bohner U Harlacher M Kellenberg 1991 Response scales as frames of reference: the impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgments Appl Cogn Psychol 5 37 49
35. N Schwarz B Knauper H-J Kippler E Noelle-Neumann L Clark 1991 Rating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels Public Opin Q 55 570 82
36. Schwarz N, Sudman S. Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996:469.
37. GJ Bug ES Kiff G Hosker 2001 A new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence BJOG 108 1057 67
38. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman 2000 Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 43 9 16