The Thai version of the Nijmegen questionnaire

Pakdee, Sirinthip; Piya-amornphan, Nitita

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12296

Cited by 2 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evidence synthesis of the developmental and content validity of available outcome measures is summarised in table 2. Of the eight outcome measures, only two were reported to have developmental and content validity properties 32 33 35 36. A representative patient sample and a cognitive interview are required to develop an outcome measure.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this was only followed in some of the included studies. All four studies involved experts32 34–36 and three involved patients 34–36. Concept elucidation was deemed ‘inadequate’ for Breathe-VQ and Korean-NQ because only healthy participants engaged in the studies 32 33.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one study that reported the reliability of clinical assessment of the work of breathing exhibited ‘adequate’ methodological quality and was ‘indeterminate’ for the rating 40. The test-retest reliability values for NQ were in the range of 0.90 and 0.98, corresponding to ‘very good’ to ‘adequate’ quality 34–36. It was also judged that the NQ’s overall rating was ‘sufficient’.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Mohan,

Rathinam,

Yates

et al. 2024

BMJ Open Resp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of outcome measures that assess dysfunctional breathing (DB) in adults.MethodsStudies on developing and evaluating measurement properties to assess DB were included. The study investigated the empirical research published between 1990 and February 2022, with an updated search in May 2023 in the Cochrane Library database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Ovid Medline (full), the Ovid Excerta Medica Database, the Ovid allied and complementary medicines database, the Ebscohost Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The included studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Data analysis and synthesis followed the COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments.ResultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and 10 outcome measures were identified. The psychometric properties of these outcome measures were evaluated using COSMIN. The Nijmegen Questionnaire (NQ) is the only outcome measure with ‘sufficient’ ratings for content validity, internal consistency, reliability and construct validity. All other outcome measures did not report characteristics of content validity in the patients’ group.DiscussionThe NQ showed high-quality evidence for validity and reliability in assessing DB. Our review suggests that using NQ to evaluate DB in people with bronchial asthma and hyperventilation syndrome is helpful. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties is needed for the remaining outcome measures before considering them for clinical use.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021274960.

show abstract