Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (2nd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Haukeland-Parker, Stacey; Hasvik, Eivind; Jelsness-Jørgensen, Lars-Petter; Birring, Surinder; Johannessen, Hege Hølmo
• Is Part Of: Physiotherapy theory and practice. Volume 38:Number 12(2022)
• Page Start: 2175
• Page End: 2184
• Publication Date: 2022-12-02
• Subjects: Cough -- surveys and questionnaires -- cross-cultural adaptation -- chronic obstructive pulmonary disease -- validation; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; 615.82
• DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2021.1911012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-3985

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Cough is a common symptom among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there are currently no patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for subjective cough symptoms in Norwegian. Objective: The objective was to translate and validated the most widely used PROM for chronic cough, the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) from English to Norwegian (NLCQ) using established guidelines. Methods: Forward and backward translations were performed using external translators. All phases were discussed in an expert workgroup until consensus was achieved. Ten patients were interviewed about the pre-final version to assess understandability and ease to complete. The final NLCQ was externally proofread and tested for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error. Results: Mean (SD) age was 67 (7.9) years, and 62% of the sample were female (n = 56/89). According to GOLD stages, 10% had mild, 27% moderate, 35% severe and 22% very severe COPD, respectively. GOLD stages were missing for five patients (6%). The NLCQ showed acceptable accordance with the original, acceptable understandability and ease to complete, satisfactory content reliability, total score construct validity, internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Test–retest bias was low, but measurement error was larger than previously reported. The standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change were 1.56 and 4.32, respectively. Construct validity and factor analysis raised concerns regarding the three subdomains. Conclusion: The present cross-cultural adaptation of the NLCQ showed satisfactory reliability and overall validity. Due to concerns for the validity of the three domains, we suggest use should be restricted to the NLCQ total score until these are reassessed.