Nijmegen Questionnaire: A valid measure for hyperventilation syndrome

Abstract

Hyperventilation syndrome is often undiagnosed due to its multi-systemic and apparently unrelated symptoms. The Nijmegen Questionnaire is used by clinicians to assess susceptible individuals, based on self-reporting symptoms attributed to hyperventilation syndrome. However, evidence of the psychometric properties of this questionnaire is lacking. This study investigated two types of validity using interviews and Rasch analysis. Data showed that the Nijmegen Questionnaire met criteria for content validity but not for structural validity. Content validity was supported by a high matching percentage between the symptoms identified within interview data and the current items on the Nijmegen Questionnaire (94%). Reported symptoms from study participants were conceptually congruent with most of the questionnaire items, with minor language inconsistencies between patients and clinicians. Rasch analysis indicated a poor fit of the Nijmegen Questionnaire to the Rasch model, demonstrating poor structural validity. This study also developed a revised 15-item version of the Nijmegen Questionnaire, which met criteria for structural validity. Subsequently, a conversion table was created for transforming raw total scores of the questionnaire in the clinical and research settings. Physiotherapists should use the revised 15-item Nijmegen Questionnaire for clinical and research purposes since it provides more accurate representation of the severity of patients' symptoms than the original scoring.

Validity and reliability of outcome measures to assess dysfunctional breathing: a systematic review

“…Our search identified the following ten outcome measures that have examined reliability and/or validity components: Breathing Vigilance Questionnaires (Breathe-VQ),32 MARM,15 21 NQ,33–37 BPAT,38 39 Hi Lo test,21 clinical assessments of increased work of breathing,40 Milstein Breathing Pattern Assessment Index (M-BPAI),41 SEBQ,14 22 TFBS24 26 and Dyspnoea-12 (D12) questionnaire 38. The Hi-Lo and D-12 scales were not included in this review for evaluation because they are not the primary scales used to assess DB 21 38.…”

“…Among the included studies, only three reported structural validity 32 34 37. Two studies explored the structural validity of the NQ measure,34 37 and one study explored the Breathe-VQ measure 26.…”

“…Among the included studies, only three reported structural validity 32 34 37. Two studies explored the structural validity of the NQ measure,34 37 and one study explored the Breathe-VQ measure 26. NQ structural validity was examined using the Rasch model and exploratory factor analysis with ‘very good’ and ‘inadequate’ quality 34 37.…”

“…Two studies explored the structural validity of the NQ measure,34 37 and one study explored the Breathe-VQ measure 26. NQ structural validity was examined using the Rasch model and exploratory factor analysis with ‘very good’ and ‘inadequate’ quality 34 37. For structural validity, the Breathe-VQ study employed exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis of ‘very good’ quality 32.…”

Effekte der pneumologischen Rehabilitation auf dysfunktionale Atemmuster bei Patienten mit unkontrolliertem Asthma

“…Dieser wurde in früheren Studien hinsichtlich der Gütekriterien und des Cut-off Werts von ≥ 23 Punkten kritisiert [5,18,28]. Zukünftige Untersuchungen sollten eine zusätzliche Bewertung von DAM über subjektive und objektive Parameter in Betracht ziehen [29,30]. Für diesen Zweck können der Self Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire (SEBQ) [31] und das Breathing Pattern Assessment Tool (BPAT) [32] von Bedeutung sein.…”