Re-evaluation And Clinical Application Of The Chinese Version Of FDDQL

OBJECTIVEExpand the sample size; reassess its reliability, validity and reliability to change. Evaluate the value of clinical application of the Chinese version of FDDQL.METHODS1. Through the clinical investigation of 300 functional patients and 100 healthy interviewees, the Chinese version of FDDQL reliability and validity is reassessed.2. Using Chinese version of FDDQL determines the quality of life of 100 dyspepsia patients which are before treatment and 2 week after treatment, and examines the reliability to change of the scale.3. It analyzes the change of the quality of life of FD with the treatment, and the corelation of the change, the patient scores.RESULTSReliability relies on test-retest coefficients, split-half coefficients and Cronbach's a coefficients:The general test-retest coefficients and domains of test-retest coefficients of the scale are respectively larger than 0.95, other than health perceptions dimensions are comparatively lesser (r=0.738). General split-half coefficients and eight dimensions split-half coefficients are both larger than 0.7. General Cronbach's a and each dimensions Cronbach's a coefficient are both larger than 0.7, other than sleep dimensions Cronbach's a coefficient is comparatively lesser (α=0.676).Validity relies on content validity, standard validity, construct validity and discriminant validity. Each item and each correlation coefficient of items r>0.6 except Q1, Q4 in activities dimensions and Q25, Q30, Q31 in discomfort dimensions in this scale. The Chinese version of FDDQL has better pertinence and its own specificity, compared with SSPPRO-CG. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the CFI of the scale was 0.890 and the CFI of 8 domains were 0.950,0.970,0.960,0.910 and 0.940.The results of IRT showed that all items didn't have uniform DIF and non-uniform DIF. The t-test showed that the scale was able to reflect the difference between healthy people and patients (P<0.01)Reactivity:There was significant difference between the score of the Chinese version of FDDQL before and 2 weeks after treatment (P< 0.01). The ES and SRM were 0.49 and 1.04 respectively. The Chinese Version of FDDQL had good acceptance rate and finish rate, the median of the complete time was 12 minutes. The patient quality of life scores were lower than the healthy quality of life scores. There seems no difference on the quality of life of patients between the gender and age. There are distinct significances between total scores of patients who are before treatment and after treatment and scores of each domain. Results of quality of life after treatment are well correlated with scores of patients (r=0.246-0.737, P<0.05)CONCLUSIONThe Chinese Version of FDDQL had good reliability, validity, discriminant validity and reliability to change. The Chinese Version of FDDQL is able to reflect the change of the quality of life of patients. The Chinese Version of FDDQL can be used to assess quality of life for patients with functional dyspepsia, and evaluating of clinical cure effects.