Vol 92, No 12 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-04-27

open access

Page views 7537
Article views/downloads 1465
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Reliability of The King’s Health Questionnaire and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ-SF) Short Form in assessing urinary incontinence effects in Polish women

Pawel Kieres1, Katarzyna Skorupska2, Jakub Mlodawski34, Marcin Misiek5, Wojciech Rokitaⴕ3, Tomasz Rechberger2
Pubmed: 33914301
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(12):850-855.


Objectives: The King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ-SF) Short Form are widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of KHQ and ICIQ-SF in Polish women.
Material and methods: One hundred fifty-five women with urinary incontinence (UI) aged between 19–82 years underwent urodynamic investigation and completed both KHQ and ICIQ-SF. We performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using VARIMAX rotation for all questionnaire pieces to estimate the factor structure and construct the validity of the KHQ and ICIQ. PCA results were also confirmed by Spearman’s correlations between KHQ and ICIQ items. Moreover, by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) we assessed the internal consistency of the KHQ and ICIQ. STATISTICA version 13.1 software (StatSoft, Poland), and open-source R software (version 3.4.4) were used for statistical analysis.
Results: Of the study group, 77 (49.6 %) patients had stress urinary incontinence (SUI), 9 (5.8%) patients had Urgency, 10 (6.45%) had OAB and 21 (13.5 %) had MUI. The factor analysis of the KHQ questions showed four main components, and ICIQ-SF- two main components. Correlations between KHQ and ICIQ-SF were from weak (0.1–0.3) to high (0.5–0.7). The KHQ’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93 and the ICIQ- 0.7. The results obtained from the questionnaire forms did not differ among study groups.
Conclusions: The Polish versions of the KHQ and ICIQ-SF questionnaires have good psychometric values and are useful diagnostic tools in the population of urinary incontinent women.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Castro DC, Robinson D, Bosch R, et al. Patient-reported outcome assessment. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wien A ed: Incontinence, 6th edn. 2017: 541–598.
  2. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017; 11(Suppl 1): S80–S89.
  3. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, et al. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104(12): 1374–1379.
  4. https://iciq.net/iciq-ui-sf.
  5. Bump RC. The POP-Q system: two decades of progress and debate. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25(4): 441–443.
  6. Dybowski B. Badanie urodynamiczne w uroginekologii. In: Barcz E. ed. Uroginekologia. Schorzenia dna miednicy. Via Medica, Gdańsk 2017.
  7. Guilford JP. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. The American Journal of Psychology. 1944; 57(1): 117.
  8. King's Health Questionnaire. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/king-s-health-questionnaire.
  9. Liang CC, Hsieh WC, Huang L. Outcome of coexistent overactive bladder symptoms in women with urodynamic urinary incontinence following anti-incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(4): 605–611.
  10. Chapple CR. Primer: questionnaires versus urodynamics in the evaluation of lower urinary tract dysfunction-one, both or none? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2005; 2(11): 555–564.
  11. Viana R, Viana S, Neto F, et al. Adaptation and validation of the King's Health Questionnaire in Portuguese women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26(7): 1027–1033.
  12. Kelleher C, Cardozo L, Toozs-Hobson P. Quality of life and urinary incontinence. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1995; 7(5): 404–408.
  13. Seckiner I, Yesilli C, Mungan NA, et al. Correlations between the ICIQ-SF score and urodynamic findings. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007; 26(4): 492–494.
  14. Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory.; 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York 1994.
  15. Rust J, Golombok S. Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment. 2nd edition. Routledge, London 1999.
  16. Litwin M. How to measure survey reliability and validity. Sage Publications, London 1995.
  17. Malik RD, Hess DS, Christie A, et al. Domain comparison between 6 validated questionnaires administered to women with urinary incontinence. Urology. 2019; 132: 75–80.
  18. Gotoh M, Homma Y, Funahashi Y, et al. Psychometric validation of the Japanese version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form. Int J Urol. 2009; 16(3): 303–306.