Validation study assesses reliability and validity of IIQ-7 in evaluating quality of life impact in women.
Background Urinary incontinence might have a strong negative influence on quality of life. It can adversely affect physical functioning, social functioning, and emotional well‐being. The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ‐7) is a grade A measure that assesses the impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life in terms of physical activity, travel, social/relationships, and emotional health. Objectives The aim of this study was to perform the translation and cultural adaptation of the IIQ‐7 into Hungarian and to assess its psychometric properties, including structural validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Materials and Methods The cross‐cultural adaptation of the questionnaire followed the COSMIN guideline and Beaton's six‐stage process. The structural validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha value. Test–retest reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (duration of the test–retest period was 14 days). Convergent validity and discriminant validity were also assessed. Results Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable model fit indices ( χ 2 = 9.331; χ 2 /df = 1.333; Comparative Fit Index = 0.996; Tucker‐Lewis Index = 0.998 and root mean‐square error approximation = 0.062). The Cronbach alpha was calculated at 0.931. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.901, indicating high test–retest reliability. Regarding discriminant validity, there was a significant difference between IIQ‐7 scores in the three urinary incontinence subgroups (stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence; p = 0.027). Conclusion The Hungarian IIQ‐7 demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. The results support the use of this instrument for evaluating the influence of urinary incontinence on quality of life among Hungarian women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SZATMÁRI et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: