Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire

Tuğçe Keziban KURT, Betül Taşpınar, Ferruh Taşpınar
In: Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences · 2023 · vol. 7(2) , pp. 705–712 · doi:10.30621/jbachs.1178880 · W4372080278
article OA: diamond CC0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This study established the validity and reliability of the Turkish Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire using test-retest, internal consistency, construct, and factorial analyses in 110 female patients.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-13 · read from full text ⓘ

This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Turkish translation of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire (PPIQ-T) using 110 female inpatients and outpatients from obstetrics and gynecology, applying cultural adaptation procedures. Reliability was assessed with test-retest intraclass correlation (ICC=0.95) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.92), while construct validity was examined via correlations between PPIQ and the McGill Pain Instrument (MPQ; r=0.85) and Short Form-36 (SF-36; r=0.62–0.78), along with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA KMO=0.87; CFA RMSEA=0.08). The authors conclude that PPIQ-T can be used to evaluate patients with chronic pelvic pain across contexts for treatment planning, though the paper does not describe additional limitations beyond the reported psychometric results. Relevance to endometriosis: the paper is about chronic pelvic pain assessment via a pelvic pain impact questionnaire, which is commonly used in endometriosis-related pelvic pain research, though endometriosis is not explicitly discussed in the provided text.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish translation of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire(PPIQ-T). Material and Methods: This study was conducted with 110 female patients (mean age of 43.67±11.71years), who were being treated as inpatients or outpatients in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. Necessary permission for PPIQ was obtained and translation procedures were applied in terms of cultural adaptation. Test-retest and internal consistency were used for reliability. The correlation between the McGill Pain Instrument(MPQ) and the Short Form-36(SF-36) was looked at to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to test the factorial validity of the PPIQ. Results: Test-retest reliability's intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was 0.95, while the Cronbach alpha value was 0.92. Significant correlation was determined between PPIQ and SF-36 questionnaires (r= 0.62-0.78, p
Full text 5,142 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish translation of the Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire(PPIQ-T).

Material and methods

This study was conducted with 110 female patients (mean age of 43.67±11.71years), who were being treated as inpatients or outpatients in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. Necessary permission for PPIQ was obtained and translation procedures were applied in terms of cultural adaptation. Test-retest and internal consistency were used for reliability. The correlation between the McGill Pain Instrument(MPQ) and the Short Form-36(SF-36) was looked at to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire. Additionally, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to test the factorial validity of the PPIQ.

Results

Test-retest reliability's intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) was 0.95, while the Cronbach alpha value was 0.92. Significant correlation was determined between PPIQ and SF-36 questionnaires (r= 0.62-0.78, p<0.001), and MPQ (r=0.85, p<0.001). The KMO coefficient was 0.87, according to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory Factor Analysis(CFA) values were found Chi-Square as 31.142, df as 18, RMSEA as 0.08, and p<0.05.

Conclusion

The study's results indicated that the PPIQ-T can be utilized to evaluate patients with CPP in a variety of contexts and for treatment planning.

Keywords

References - 1. Engeler D et al. EAU guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. 2022. https://uroweb.org/individual-guidelines/non-oncology-guidelines/ - 2. Ahangari A. Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain among women: an updated review. Pain physician 2014;17(2):E141-147. - 3. Vincent K. Chronic pelvic pain in women. Postgrad Med J 2009;85(999):24-29. - 4. Howard HS. Sexual adjustment counseling for women with chronic pelvic pain. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2012;41(5):692-702. - 5. Fall M, Baranowski AP, Elneil S, Engeler D, Hughes J, Messelink EJ et al. EAU guidelines on chronic pelvic pain. Eur Urol 2010;57(1):35-48. - 6. Dick ML. Chronic pelvic pain in women: assessment and management. Aust Fam Physician 2004;33(12):971-976. - 7. Sewell M, Churilov L, Mooney S, Ma T, Maher P & Grover SR. Chronic pelvic pain–pain catastrophizing, pelvic pain and quality of life. Scand J Pain 2018;18(3):441-448. - 8. Cox L, Ayers S, Mala K, Penny J. Chronic pelvic pain and quality of life after laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:214–219. Details Primary Language English Subjects Health Care Administration Journal Section Research Article Publication Date May 31, 2023 Submission Date September 22, 2022 Acceptance Date March 6, 2023 Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 7 Number: 2 APA Kurt, T. K., Taşpınar, B., & Taspinar, F. (2023). Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, 7(2), 705-712. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.1178880 AMA 1.Kurt TK, Taşpınar B, Taspinar F. Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. JBACHS. 2023;7(2):705-712. doi:10.30621/jbachs.1178880 Chicago Kurt, Tuğçe Keziban, Betül Taşpınar, and Ferruh Taspinar. 2023. “Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 7 (2): 705-12. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.1178880. EndNote Kurt TK, Taşpınar B, Taspinar F (May 1, 2023) Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 7 2 705–712. IEEE [1]T. K. Kurt, B. Taşpınar, and F. Taspinar, “Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire”, JBACHS, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 705–712, May 2023, doi: 10.30621/jbachs.1178880. ISNAD Kurt, Tuğçe Keziban - Taşpınar, Betül - Taspinar, Ferruh. “Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 7/2 (May 1, 2023): 705-712. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.1178880. JAMA 1.Kurt TK, Taşpınar B, Taspinar F. Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. JBACHS. 2023;7:705–712. MLA Kurt, Tuğçe Keziban, et al. “Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, vol. 7, no. 2, May 2023, pp. 705-12, doi:10.30621/jbachs.1178880. Vancouver 1.Tuğçe Keziban Kurt, Betül Taşpınar, Ferruh Taspinar. Validity and Reliability of The Turkish Version of The Pelvic Pain Impact Questionnaire. JBACHS. 2023 May 1;7(2):705-12. doi:10.30621/jbachs.1178880 Cited By The Association Between Urinary Incontinence With Pelvic Pain and Sensory‐Motor Function in Older Women With Stroke Neurourology and Urodynamics https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.25613Pelvic pain, sexual distress and satisfaction: cross-sectional study The Journal of Sexual Medicine https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf042

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (21)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK