Año 2018 / Volumen 110 / Número 1
Original
New psychometric data from the Spanish versions of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score and the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale measures

10-18

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4911/2017

Miren Orive, Ane Antón-Ladislao, Nerea González, Begoña Matellanes, Jesús Ángel Padierna, José Luis Cabriada, Aitor Orive, Víctor Manuel Orive, José María Quintana,

Resumen
Background and objective: There are no structural abnormalities in functional dyspepsia, therefore it is essential to have a viable questionnaire to measure treatment outcome according to patient perception. The aim of the study was to extensively document psychometric characteristics of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score and the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale that are currently available in Spanish. Methods: Patients with functional dyspepsia (n = 158) were recruited from a randomized trial that assessed standard vs. standard and psychological treatment. Participants had completed the validation questionnaires and the Medical Outcome Study Short-form 36. Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, convergent and known group validity) and responsiveness (minimal clinically important difference) were analyzed. Results: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score showed a one-factor solution model, but a low Cronbach’s alpha (0.61). With regard to the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale, the Cronbach’s alpha (0.80-0.97) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported a model with four inter-correlated dimensions and suggested a need to improve the “Satisfaction with dyspepsia-related health” dimension (Cronbach’s alpha < 20). Finally, the global scores for both the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score and the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale were responsive at six months post-treatment, with a minimal clinically important difference of 4 and 6, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings support the continued application of the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale and the need to improve the “Satisfaction with dyspepsia-related health” dimension. Although the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score is a promising questionnaire, further review of the content is required to eliminate and add items in order to provide greater consistency to the evaluated construct.
Nuevo comentario
Comentarios
No hay comentarios para este artículo.
Bibliografía
1. El-Serag HB, Talley NJ. Systematic review: health-related quality of life in functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:387-393.
2. Orive M, Barrio I, Orive VM, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a 10 week group psychotherapeutic treatment added to standard medical treatment in patients with functional dyspepsia. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78:563-568.
3. Ford AC, Moayyedi P. Dyspepsia. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2013;29:662-668.
4. Fraser A, Delaney B, Moayyedi P. Symptom-based outcome measures for dyspepsia and GERD trials: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:442-452.
5. Kulich KR, Madisch A, Pacini F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire in dyspepsia: a six-country study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:12.
6. el-Omar EM, Banerjee S, Wirz A, et al. The Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score--a tool for the global measurement of dyspepsia. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996;8:967-971.
7. Ruiz M, Villasante F, Leon F, et al. [Dyspepsia-related quality of life. Spanish adaptation and validation of the questionnaire Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale]. Med Clin (Barc ). 2001;117:567-573.
8. Badia X, Alonso J. La medida de la salud. Guía de escalas de medición en español. Barcelona: Fundación Lilly; 2007.
9. Jorda F, Vivancos J. Evaluación de la calidad de vida en las enferemdades digestivas. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;27:26-36.
10. Shah HA, Dritsaki M, Pink J, et al. Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:15.
11. Mones J, Adan A, Lopez JS, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2001;93:164-175.
12. Kulich KR, Wiklund I, Junghard O. Factor structure of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire evaluated in patients with heartburn predominant reflux disease. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:699-708.
13. Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL. Rome III: New standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2006;15:237-241.
14. Kuykendall DH, Rabeneck L, Campbell CJ, et al. Dyspepsia: how should we measure it? J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:99-106.
15. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr., Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-263.
16. Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
17. Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L, et al. [The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments]. Gac Sanit. 2005;19:135-150.
18. Vilagut G, Valderas JM, Ferrer M, et al. [Interpretation of SF-36 and SF-12 questionnaires in Spain: physical and mental components]. Med Clin (Barc ). 2008;130:726-735.
19. Bentler PM, Chou CH. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research. 1987;16:78-117.
20. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.
21. Hatcher L. Developing measurement models with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. A step by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modelling. North Carolina: SAS Institute; 1994:249-342.
22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behabioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
23. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.
24. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541-546.
25. Calvet X, Bustamante E, Montserrat A, et al. Validation of phone interview for follow-up in clinical trials on dyspepsia: evaluation of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score and a Likert-scale symptoms test. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;12:949-953.
26. Wiklund IK, Junghard O, Grace E, et al. Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia patients. Psychometric documentation of a new disease-specific questionnaire (QOLRAD). Eur J Surg Suppl. 1998;41-49.
27. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008-1018.
28. Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587-594.
Instrucciones para citar
Orive M, Antón-Ladislao A, González N, Matellanes B, Padierna J, Cabriada J, et all. New psychometric data from the Spanish versions of the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score and the Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale measures . 4911/2017


Descargar en un gestor de citas

Descargue la cita de este artículo haciendo clic en uno de los siguientes gestores de citas:

Métrica
Este artículo ha sido visitado 511 veces.
Este artículo ha sido descargado 188 veces.

Estadísticas de Dimensions


Estadísticas de Plum Analytics

Ficha Técnica

Recibido: 22/02/2017

Aceptado: 14/09/2017

Prepublicado: 16/11/2017

Publicado: 12/01/2018

Tiempo de revisión del artículo: 184 días

Tiempo de prepublicación: 267 días

Tiempo de edición del artículo: 324 días


Compartir
Este artículo aun no tiene valoraciones.
Valoración del lector:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
La REED es el órgano oficial de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, la SociedadEspañola de Endoscopia Digestiva y la Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Política de cookies Política de Privacidad Aviso Legal © Copyright 2025 y Creative Commons. Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas