Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025
Translation and Validation of Leicester Cough Questionnaire in Kannada.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Venkatraman Yamini, Acharya Vishak, Kamath Sindhu, Gunjawate Dhanshree R, Balasubramanium Radish Kumar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) is a widely used patient reported outcome measure to profile the impact of cough on an individual's quality of life. It has been translated and validated in many languages but is unavailable in Kannada, a South Indian language. This research focused on translating and validating the LCQ in Kannada among individuals with chronic cough.
METHOD: The LCQ-Kannada was cross-culturally adapted using a rigorous, standard translation procedure and validated in a chronic cough cohort. One hundred fifty-nine participants were enrolled based on eligibility criteria. Participants completed three questionnaires: LCQ-Kannada, Cough Symptom Score (CSS), and Cough Visual Analog Scale (CVAS). The translated questionnaire was evaluated for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness.
RESULTS: The LCQ-Kannada obtained a high overall and domain-specific internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficient values between .75 and .93. The repeatability was tested in 10% of the participants, and significant test-retest reliability scores were obtained (intraclass coefficients: .50-.91). The LCQ-Kannada correlated significantly with CVAS and CSS with coefficient values between .61-.74 and .52-.66, respectively (p < .001). Responsiveness was measured in 26 participants who reported improvement with treatment and had a significant change in LCQ-Kannada scores (mean improvement: 1.74-6.21; p < .001).
CONCLUSION: The LCQ-Kannada is a reliable and valid clinical tool for individuals with chronic cough.
METHOD: The LCQ-Kannada was cross-culturally adapted using a rigorous, standard translation procedure and validated in a chronic cough cohort. One hundred fifty-nine participants were enrolled based on eligibility criteria. Participants completed three questionnaires: LCQ-Kannada, Cough Symptom Score (CSS), and Cough Visual Analog Scale (CVAS). The translated questionnaire was evaluated for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness.
RESULTS: The LCQ-Kannada obtained a high overall and domain-specific internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficient values between .75 and .93. The repeatability was tested in 10% of the participants, and significant test-retest reliability scores were obtained (intraclass coefficients: .50-.91). The LCQ-Kannada correlated significantly with CVAS and CSS with coefficient values between .61-.74 and .52-.66, respectively (p < .001). Responsiveness was measured in 26 participants who reported improvement with treatment and had a significant change in LCQ-Kannada scores (mean improvement: 1.74-6.21; p < .001).
CONCLUSION: The LCQ-Kannada is a reliable and valid clinical tool for individuals with chronic cough.