Introduction Urolithiasis is a common disease that significantly impairs patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life (WISQOL) questionnaire is the first disease-specific instrument developed to assess HRQOL in patients with urolithiasis and has been validated in several languages.Objective To translate the WISQOL questionnaire into Arabic and evaluate its validity and reliability for use among Arabic-speaking patients.Materials and methods The original English WISQOL questionnaire was translated into Arabic using a standardized forward–backward translation process. A prospective observational validation study was conducted on 100 adult patients with urolithiasis admitted to the Urology Department, Alexandria Main University Hospital. Participants completed both the Arabic WISQOL questionnaire and the validated Arabic Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36v2) before treatment and at 1 and 3 months after intervention. Psychometric evaluation included assessment of test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity.Results The Arabic WISQOL demonstrated good test–retest reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.90 across domains and 0.89 for the overall score. Internal consistency was satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.70 for all domains. Significant correlations were observed between WISQOL domain scores and the corresponding SF-36v2 subscales (p < 0.001), confirming good convergent validity. The mean total WISQOL score improved from 74.4 ± 19.8 at baseline to 89.0 ± 22.3 at 1 month and 126.3 ± 12.1 at 3 months, demonstrating good responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in patients’ quality of life over time.Conclusion The Arabic version of the WISQOL is a valid, reliable, and responsive disease-specific instrument for assessing HRQOL in Arabic-speaking patients with urolithiasis and is suitable for both clinical practice and research.
Elgebaly et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: