Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and Reliability of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire in Assessing Patients With Fecal Incontinence

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

PURPOSE

To date, no measures of fecal incontinence severity or its impact on quality of life have been validated for telephone interview. This study was designed to 1) compare responses of a self-administered and a telephone-administered Fecal Incontinence Severity Index; 2) compare a self-administered Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale to the Manchester Health Questionnaire after modifying the latter for telephone administration and American English (Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire); 3) assess test-retest reliability of the telephone-administered Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire; and 4) assess the internal consistency of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire subscales.

METHODS

Consecutive, English-speaking, nonpregnant females known to have fecal incontinence were invited to participate. Two validated paper questionnaires accompanied the letter informing them of the study: Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. Consenting patients were contacted for the initial telephone administration of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire, and patients who agreed to continue the study were contacted for a repeat telephone administration of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire two to four weeks after completing the first interview.

RESULTS

Fifty-one females were invited to participate in the study; however, 13 declined or were ineligible. Thirty females, aged 49.3 ± 10.3 years, returned self-administered questionnaires and completed the first telephone interview, and 21 completed a second telephone interview after an average interval of 23 days. The telephone-administered Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores were significantly lower than those yielded by the self-administered Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, (6.19 vs. 9.85; P < 0.001), but the telephone and written administrations were significantly correlated (r = 0.5; P < 0.02). Correlations between the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire quality of life subscales and the paper Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life subscales ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 (median, r = 0.81). The correlation between the total score for the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life and the total score for the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire quality of life scales was 0.93 (P < 0.001). Test-retest reliability for the eight Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire subscales ranged from 0.55 to 0.98 (median, r = 0.83), and test-retest reliability for the two telephone administrations of the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index was r = 0.75. Cronbach’s alpha for the eight Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire subscales ranged from 0.79 to 0.92 (median, alpha = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone-administered versions of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire showed good-to-excellent validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. The telephone-administered Fecal Incontinence Severity Index yielded lower severity scores than the written Fecal Incontinence Severity Index; however, the difference (3.66 units) was not clinically significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

To the article

  1. JF Johanson J Lafferty (1996) ArticleTitleEpidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction Am J Gastroenterol 91 33–6 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK287ksFakug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle8561140

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. R Nelson N Norton E Cautley S Furner (1995) ArticleTitleCommunity-based prevalence of anal incontinence JAMA 274 559–61 Occurrence Handle10.1001/jama.274.7.559 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK2Mzls1entQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle7629985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. R Nelson S Furner V Jesudason (1998) ArticleTitleFecal incontinence in Wisconsin nursing homes: prevalence and associations Dis Colon Rectum 41 1226–9 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2Fgt1CgsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9788384

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. CJ Vaizey E Carapeti JA Cahill MA Kamm (1999) ArticleTitleProspective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems Gut 44 77–80 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FotFKmuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9862829 Occurrence Handle10.1136/gut.44.1.77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. JM Jorge SD Wexner (1993) ArticleTitleEtiology and management of fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 36 77–97 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK3s7gsFOnug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle8416784

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. M Pescatori G Anastasio C Bottini A Mentasti (1992) ArticleTitleNew grading and scoring for anal incontinence: evaluation of 335 patients Dis Colon Rectum 35 482–7 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK383jtlOltQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle1568401

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman et al. (1999) ArticleTitlePatient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index Dis Colon Rectum 42 1525–32 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FnvVKgsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10613469

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman et al. (2000) ArticleTitleFecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 43 9–16 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ntFahtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10813117

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. GJ Bug ES Kiff G Hosker (2001) ArticleTitleA new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence BJOG 108 1057–67 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnltV2juw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11702838

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. X Badia Llach D Castro Diaz J Conejero Sugranes (2000) ArticleTitleValidity of the King’s Health questionnaire in the assessment of quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence. The King’s Group Med Clin (Barc) 114 647–52 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czovVaktA%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. AH Sultan MA Kamm CN Hudson JM Thomas CI Bartram (1993) ArticleTitleAnal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery N Engl J Med 329 1905–11 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK2c%2Fmslagtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle8247054

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. J Zetterstrom A Lopez B Anzen M Norman B Holmstrom A Mellgren (1999) ArticleTitleAnal sphincter tears at vaginal delivery: risk factors and clinical outcome of primary repair Obstet Gynecol 94 21–8 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1Mzhs1Gktg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10389712

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Invited Commentary

  1. 1. Rockwood TH, Kane RL, Lowry A. Mode of administration considerations in the development of condition specific quality of life scales. In: 7th Health Surveys Conference. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.

  2. FJ Fowler SuffixJr AM Roman ZX Di (1998) ArticleTitleMode effects in a survey of medicare prostate surgery patients Public Opin Q 62 29–46

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blalock HM. Measurement in the social sciences: theories and strategies. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974:464.

  4. Campbell DT, Overman ES. Methodology and epistemology for social science: selected papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988:609.

  5. Campbell DT, Russo MJ. Social measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001:509.

  6. Dillman DA. Mail and electronic surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1999.

  7. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978:325.

  8. N Schwarz et al. (1991) ArticleTitleThe impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement Appl Cogn Psychol 5 193–212

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dillman DA, Sangster, RL, Tarnai, J, Rockwood, TH. Understanding differences in people’s answers to telephone and mail surveys. In: Braverman, MT and Slater JK, eds. Advances in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996; 70: 110.

  10. TH Rockwood RL Sangster DA Dillman (1997) ArticleTitleThe effect of response categories on questionnaire answers: context and mode effects Sociol Methods Res 26 118–40

    Google Scholar 

  11. Groves RM, Dillman, DA, Etlinge, JL, Little, RJA. Survey nonresponse. Wiley series in survey methodology. New York: Wiley, 2002:500.

  12. Groves RM, Beimer, PP, Lyberg, LE, Massey, JT, Nichools, WLI, Waksberg, J. Telephone survey methodology. New York: Wiley, 1988:581.

  13. Groves RM. Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley, 1989:590.

  14. Groves RM, Couper M. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Survey methodology section. New York: Wiley, 1998:344.

  15. Biemer PP, Groves, RM, Lyberg, LE, Mathiowitz, NA, Sudman, S. Measurement errors in surveys. New York: Wiley, 1991:760.

  16. Lyberg L. Survey measurement and process quality. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Applied probability and statistics. New York: Wiley, 1997:777.

  17. Martin E (2004) “Presidental address: unfinished business” Public Opin 68(3): 439–50

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz N, Sudman, S. Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992:353.

  19. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000

  20. Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996:304.

  21. Sirken MG. Cognition and survey research. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Survey methodology section. New York: Wiley, 1999:395.

  22. N Schwarz H Bless G Bohner U Harlacher M Kellenberg (1991) ArticleTitleResponse scales as frames of reference: the impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgments Appl Cogn Psychol 5 37–49

    Google Scholar 

  23. N Schwarz B Knauper H-J Kippler E Noelle-Neumann L Clark (1991) ArticleTitleRating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels Public Opin Q 55 570–82

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schwarz N, Sudman S. Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996:469.

The Authors Reply

  1. GJ Bug ES Kiff G Hosker (2001) ArticleTitleA new condition-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for the assessment of women with anal incontinence BJOG 108 1057–67 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnltV2juw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11702838

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. TH Rockwood JM Church JW Fleshman et al. (2000) ArticleTitleFecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence Dis Colon Rectum 43 9–16 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ntFahtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10813117

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    Soo Kwon M.D. & Anthony G. Visco M.D.

  2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Loyola University, Maywood, Illinois

    Mary P. Fitzgerald M.D.

  3. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Wen Ye M.S.

  4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    William E. Whitehead Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Soo Kwon M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony G. Visco M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary P. Fitzgerald M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wen Ye M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William E. Whitehead Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William E. Whitehead Ph.D..

Additional information

Supported by Pelvic Floor Disorders Network.

Supported by NICHD grants U10 HD41249, U10 HD41268, U10 HD41248, U10 HD41250, U10 HD41261, U10 HD41263, U10 HD41269, U10 HD41267.

Reprints are not available.

About this article

Cite this article

Kwon, S., Visco, A., Fitzgerald, M. et al. Validity and Reliability of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire in Assessing Patients With Fecal Incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 48, 323–334 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0899-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0899-y

Key words

Search

Navigation