Translation and reliability and validity testing of a Japanese version of the Intermittent Self‐Catheterization Questionnaire among disposable and reusable catheter users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Quality of life in the context of intermittent self‐catheterization varies depending on the type of catheter used. This study translated into Japanese, evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Intermittent Self‐Catheterization Questionnaire (ISC‐Q) among users of both reusable and disposable catheters, and examined the differences of it between them. Methods Seventy patients (age mean ± SD: 62.8 ± 17.7 years) completed the Japanese version of the ISC‐Q (J‐ISC‐Q) at baseline and 4 weeks later. Spearman's correlation coefficients between the J‐ISC‐Q, and Qualiveen ® and the SF‐12 were used for the translated scale's discriminant and convergent validity. Reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), the Bland–Altman method, and Cronbach's alpha. Results Participants answered all questionnaire items with no difficulties. Scores on the convenience domain were significantly higher among reusable compared to disposable catheter users ( P = 0.039). The J‐ISC‐Q had significantly strong correlations with the Qualiveen ® total scale ( ρ = −0.712 to −0.237), but weak correlations with the SF‐12 total scale ( ρ = −0.231 to 0.474). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alphas > 0.706), and test–retest reliability was acceptable (ICC > 0.6) for the total scale and the four J‐ISC‐Q domains. The Bland–Altman analysis showed no systematic error between scores at baseline and 4 weeks later for the total scale and four domains of the J‐ISC‐Q. Conclusions The J‐ISC‐Q has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing both reusable and disposable catheter users, and can be used to promote tailored individualized interventions based on the impact of catheter use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".