This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose: The Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q) is a generic, multidimensional scale that measures patients' expectations of medical and psychological treatments. Currently, it is available in English and German only. This study aims to translate the TEX-Q into Dutch and evaluate its psychometric properties. Patients and Methods: The TEX-Q was translated into Dutch following international guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. The Dutch version was tested in 163 gynaecological outpatients starting new treatments, a group suitable for validation due to their diverse treatment experiences. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a sample of 25 gynaecological outpatients. We examined data completeness (ie, no missing data), score distributions, internal consistency, construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity was tested through correlations with Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) and a single item from Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). Discriminant validity was assessed using Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Results: Data completeness was 89%. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's α, was good for most subscales, with values mostly above 0.75, except for the 'Process" subscale (Cronbach's α = 0.55). The mean TEX-Q score showed moderate to strong correlations with CEQ and the B-IPQ item (r = 0.29-0.55). Correlations with discriminant measures like LOT-R, GSES, GAD-7 and PHQ-9 were low (r = 0.22, 0.23, -0.17, -0.14 respectively). CFA revealed an acceptable six-factor model. Factor loadings were high (minimum of 0.76). The test-retest reliability was moderate for the mean TEX-Q score (ICC = 0.72). Conclusion: The Dutch version of the TEX-Q demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability, making it suitable for research and clinical practice in gynaecology. Further validation across diverse clinical populations is recommended.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keukens et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: