莱斯特咳嗽问卷在巴西葡萄牙语的验证。

IF 0.8 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
CoDAS Pub Date : 2025-09-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/e20240391en
Rodrigo Dornelas, Vanessa Veis Ribeiro, Alice Lopes, Thassiany Carpanez, Surinder Birring, Mara Behlau
{"title":"莱斯特咳嗽问卷在巴西葡萄牙语的验证。","authors":"Rodrigo Dornelas, Vanessa Veis Ribeiro, Alice Lopes, Thassiany Carpanez, Surinder Birring, Mara Behlau","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/e20240391en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to validate the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) for Brazilian Portuguese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Validation followed the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Data collection included a sociodemographic questionnaire, the translated version of LCQ-Brazil (LCQ-Br), self-perception of laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, the Cough Severity Index (CSI-Br), and the Newcastle Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire (LHQ-Br). The LCQ-Br retained its original structure with 19 items across physical, psychological, and social domains. Participants completed the LCQ-Br on three occasions to assess validity, reliability, and responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight patients with chronic cough (79% women; mean age of 49) participated. Construct validation confirmed the LCQ-Br's factorial structure. For concurrent validity, negative correlations were observed between LCQ-Br domains and self-perceived laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, and CSI-Br factors (physical, social, psychological, and total scores). A positive correlation was found between the LCQ-Br total and LHQ-Br scores. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.952), and test-retest reliability yielded a coefficient of 0.455. The responsiveness analysis demonstrated significant reductions in LCQ-Br scores post-intervention for physical, psychological, and total domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LCQ-Br is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing health status in chronic cough patients, making it suitable for clinical practice and research applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":"37 5","pages":"e20240391"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490511/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in Brazilian Portuguese.\",\"authors\":\"Rodrigo Dornelas, Vanessa Veis Ribeiro, Alice Lopes, Thassiany Carpanez, Surinder Birring, Mara Behlau\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/2317-1782/e20240391en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to validate the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) for Brazilian Portuguese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Validation followed the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Data collection included a sociodemographic questionnaire, the translated version of LCQ-Brazil (LCQ-Br), self-perception of laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, the Cough Severity Index (CSI-Br), and the Newcastle Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire (LHQ-Br). The LCQ-Br retained its original structure with 19 items across physical, psychological, and social domains. Participants completed the LCQ-Br on three occasions to assess validity, reliability, and responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight patients with chronic cough (79% women; mean age of 49) participated. Construct validation confirmed the LCQ-Br's factorial structure. For concurrent validity, negative correlations were observed between LCQ-Br domains and self-perceived laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, and CSI-Br factors (physical, social, psychological, and total scores). A positive correlation was found between the LCQ-Br total and LHQ-Br scores. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.952), and test-retest reliability yielded a coefficient of 0.455. The responsiveness analysis demonstrated significant reductions in LCQ-Br scores post-intervention for physical, psychological, and total domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LCQ-Br is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing health status in chronic cough patients, making it suitable for clinical practice and research applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CoDAS\",\"volume\":\"37 5\",\"pages\":\"e20240391\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490511/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CoDAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20240391en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20240391en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在验证莱斯特咳嗽问卷(LCQ)对巴西葡萄牙人的影响。方法:采用基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)进行验证。数据收集包括社会人口调查问卷、巴西LCQ-Br (LCQ-Br)翻译版、喉敏感性自我感知、咳嗽频率和强度、咳嗽严重程度指数(CSI-Br)和纽卡斯尔喉超敏反应问卷(LHQ-Br)。LCQ-Br保留了原来的结构,包括生理、心理和社会领域的19个项目。参与者分三次完成LCQ-Br问卷,以评估效度、信度和反应性。结果:98例慢性咳嗽患者(79%为女性,平均年龄49岁)参与了研究。构式验证证实了LCQ-Br的析因结构。对于并发效度,LCQ-Br域与自我感知喉敏感、咳嗽频率和强度以及CSI-Br因子(生理、社会、心理和总分)呈负相关。LCQ-Br总分与LHQ-Br得分呈正相关。内部一致性高(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.952),重测信度系数为0.455。反应性分析表明,干预后LCQ-Br得分在生理、心理和总领域显著降低。结论:LCQ-Br是一种有效、可靠、反应灵敏的慢性咳嗽患者健康状况评估工具,适合临床实践和研究应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in Brazilian Portuguese.

Purpose: This study aimed to validate the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) for Brazilian Portuguese.

Methods: Validation followed the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Data collection included a sociodemographic questionnaire, the translated version of LCQ-Brazil (LCQ-Br), self-perception of laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, the Cough Severity Index (CSI-Br), and the Newcastle Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire (LHQ-Br). The LCQ-Br retained its original structure with 19 items across physical, psychological, and social domains. Participants completed the LCQ-Br on three occasions to assess validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Results: Ninety-eight patients with chronic cough (79% women; mean age of 49) participated. Construct validation confirmed the LCQ-Br's factorial structure. For concurrent validity, negative correlations were observed between LCQ-Br domains and self-perceived laryngeal sensitivity, cough frequency and intensity, and CSI-Br factors (physical, social, psychological, and total scores). A positive correlation was found between the LCQ-Br total and LHQ-Br scores. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.952), and test-retest reliability yielded a coefficient of 0.455. The responsiveness analysis demonstrated significant reductions in LCQ-Br scores post-intervention for physical, psychological, and total domains.

Conclusion: The LCQ-Br is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing health status in chronic cough patients, making it suitable for clinical practice and research applications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CoDAS
CoDAS AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
103
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信