Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 6/2018

01-06-2018

Evaluation of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL) using item response theory reveals limitations and suggests revisions

Authors: Alexander C. Peterson, Jason M. Sutherland, Guiping Liu, R. Trafford Crump, Ahmer A. Karimuddin

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL) is a commonly used patient-reported outcome measure for fecal incontinence, often used in clinical trials, yet has not been validated in English since its initial development. This study uses modern methods to thoroughly evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the FIQL and its potential for differential functioning by gender.

Methods

This study analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcome data from a sample of patients prior to colorectal surgery. Patients were recruited from 14 general and colorectal surgeons in Vancouver Coastal Health hospitals in Vancouver, Canada. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess construct validity. Item response theory was used to evaluate test reliability, describe item-level characteristics, identify local item dependence, and test for differential functioning by gender.

Results

236 patients were included for analysis, with mean age 58 and approximately half female. Factor analysis failed to identify the lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment domains, suggesting lack of construct validity. Items demonstrated low difficulty, indicating that the test has the highest reliability among individuals who have low quality of life. Five items are suggested for removal or replacement. Differential test functioning was minimal.

Conclusions

This study has identified specific improvements that can be made to each domain of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale and to the instrument overall. Formatting, scoring, and instructions may be simplified, and items with higher difficulty developed. The lifestyle domain can be used as is. The embarrassment domain should be significantly revised before use.
Literature
1.
2.
Bharucha, A. E., Dunivan, G., Goode, P. S., Lukacz, E. S., Markland, A. D., Matthews, C. A., et al. (2015). Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and classification of fecal incontinence: State of the Science Summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Workshop. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 110(1), 127–136.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Rockwood, T. H., Church, J. M., Fleshman, J. W., Kane, R. L., Mavrantonis, C., Thorson a, G., et al. (2000). Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: Quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 43(1), 9–16.CrossRef
4.
Rullier, E., Zerbib, F., Marrel, A., Amouretti, M., & Lehur, P.-A. (2004). Validation of the French version of the Fecal Quality of Life (FIQL) Scale. Gastroenterologie Clinique Et Biologique, 28(1), 562–568.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Minguez, M., Garrigues, V., Soria, M. J., Andreu, M., Mearin, F., & Clave, P. (2006). Adaptation to Spanish language and validation of the fecal incontinence quality of life scale. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 49, 490–499.CrossRef
6.
Dedeli, O., Fadiloglu, C., & Bor, S. (2009). Validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 36(5), 532–538.CrossRef
7.
Hashimoto, H., Shiokawa, H., Funahashi, K., Saito, N., Sawada, T., Shirouzu, K., et al. (2010). Development and validation of a modified fecal incontinence quality of life scale for Japanese patients after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 45, 928–935.CrossRef
8.
Tsunoda, A., Yamada, K., Kano, N., & Takano, M. (2012). Translation and validation of the Japanese version of the fecal incontinence quality of life scale. Surgery Today, 43, 1103–1108.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ogata, H., Mimura, T., & Hanazaki, K. (2012). Validation study of the Japanese version of the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. Colorectal Disease, 14(2), 194–199.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dehli, T., Martinussen, M., Mevik, K., Stordahl, A., Sahlin, Y., Linsetmo, R., et al. (2011). Translation and validation of the Norwegian version of the fecal incontinence quality-of-life scale. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 100(3), 190–195.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ahnis, A., Holzhausen, M., Rockwood, T. H., & Rosemeier, H. P. (2012). FLQAI—A questionnaire on quality of life in fecal incontinence: German translation and validation of Rockwood et al’s (2000) Fecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQLS). Zeitschrift Fur Gastroenterologie, 50(7), 661–669.CrossRefPubMed
12.
’t Hoen, L. A., Utomo, E., Schouten, W. R., Block, B. F. M., & Korfage, I. J. (2016). The fecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI): Validation of the Dutch versions. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 36, 710–715.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bols, E. M. J., Hendriks, H. J. M., Berghmans, L. C. M., Baeten, C. G. M. I., & De Bie, R. A. (2013). Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: A secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, 24(3), 469–478.CrossRef
14.
Mak, T. W. C., Leung, W. W., Ngo, D. K. Y., Lee, J. F. Y., Hon, S. S. F., & Ng, S. S. M. (2016). Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 31, 445–450.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Devesa, J. M., Vicente, R., & Abraira, V. (2013). Visual analogue scales for grading faecal incontinence and quality of life: Their relationship with the Jorge-Wexner score and Rockwood scale. Techniques in Coloproctology, 17, 67–71.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sands, D. R., & Thorsen, A. J. (2016). Common tests for the pelvic floor. In: S. R. Steele, T. L. Hull, T. E. Read, T. J. Saclarides, A. J. Senagore & C. B. Whitlow (Eds.) The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery (3rd ed., p. 1029). New York: Springer.
17.
Franklin, H., Barrett, A. C., & Wolf, R. (2016). Identifying factors associated with clinical success in patients treated with NASHA®/Dx injection for fecal incontinence. Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, 9, 41–47.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Patton, V., Abraham, E., & Lubowski, D. Z. (2017). Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: Medium-term follow-up from a single institution. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 87, 462–466.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Park, J. G., Lee, M. R., Lim, S. B., Hong, C. W., Yoon, S. N., Kang, S. B., et al. (2005). Colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis after ultralow anterior resection with upper sphincter excision for low-lying rectal cancer. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 11(17), 2570–2573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Sutherland, J. M., Crump, R. T., Chan, A., Liu, G., Yue, E., & Bair, M. (2016). Health of patients on the waiting list: Opportunities to improve health in Canada? Health Policy, 120(7), 749–757.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Rockwood, T. H., Church, J. M., Fleshman, J. W., Kane, R. L., Mavrantonis, C., Thorson a, G., et al. (1999). Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: The fecal incontinence severity index. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 42(12), 1525–1532.CrossRef
22.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.CrossRef
23.
Kline, P. (2002). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
24.
25.
Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden& R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York: Springer.CrossRef
26.
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). In: C. Boston & L. Rudner (Eds.). College Park: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
27.
Samejima, F. (1977). A use of the information function in tailored testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(2), 233–247.CrossRef
28.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
29.
Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265–289.CrossRef
30.
Yau, D. T., Wong, M. C., Lam, K., & McGrath, C. (2015). Evaluation of psychometric properties and differential item functioning of 8-item Child Perceptions Questionnaires using item response theory. BMC Public Health, 15, 1–10.CrossRef
31.
Hospers, J. M. B., Smits, N., Smits, C., Stam, M., Terwee, C. B., & Kramer, S. E. (2016). Reevaluation of the Amsterdam inventory for auditory disability and handicap using item response theory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 373–383.CrossRef
32.
Kang, T., & Chen, T. T. (2008). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for polytomous IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 391–406.CrossRef
33.
Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Kopf, J., Zeileis, A., & Strobl, C. (2015). Anchor selection strategies for DIF analysis: Review, assessment, and new approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 22–56.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Chalmers, R., Counsell, A., & Flora, D. (2016). It might not make a big DIF: Improved differential test functioning statistics that account for sampling variability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(1), 114–140.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Bell, M. L., & Fairclough, D. L. (2013). Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient reported outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 23(5), 440–459.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Johnson, D. R., & Young, R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 926–945.CrossRef
38.
39.
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29.CrossRef
40.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.CrossRef
41.
Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187–213.CrossRef
42.
Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer.CrossRef
43.
Paap, M. C. S., Brouwer, D., Glas, C. A. W., Monninkhof, E. M., Forstreuter, B., Pieterse, M. E., et al. (2015). The St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire revisited: A psychometric evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 24, 67–79.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRef
45.
Jiang, S., Wang, C., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). Sample size requirements for estimation of item parameters in the multidimensional graded response model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 109.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Brems, C., Johnson, M. E., Warner, T., & Roberts, L. W. (2016). Survey return rates as a function of priority versus first-class mailing. Psychological Reports, 99(2), 496–501.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL) using item response theory reveals limitations and suggests revisions
Authors
Alexander C. Peterson
Jason M. Sutherland
Guiping Liu
R. Trafford Crump
Ahmer A. Karimuddin
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1826-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Quality of Life Research 6/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Effects of treatment, choice, and preference on health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

Review

Health-related quality of life of survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review

OriginalPaper

The impact of caregiver’s role preference on decisional conflicts and psychiatric distresses in decision making to help caregiver’s disclosure of terminal disease status

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal and dynamic measurement invariance of the FACIT-Fatigue scale: an application of the measurement model of derivatives to ECOG-ACRIN study E2805

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), derived from a large German community sample

OriginalPaper

Patients with refractory ascites treated with alfapump® system have better health-related quality of life as compared to those treated with large volume paracentesis: the results of a multicenter randomized controlled study