Amsterdam complex pelvic pain symptom scale with subscales: Based on a Norwegian translation, psychometric assessment and modification of the Amsterdam hyperactive pelvic floor scale

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionWomen with an abnormally high pelvic floor muscle tone may have a clinical presentation that is complex, involving urinary, anorectal and/or sexual dysfunction, genital/pelvic pain and psychological distress. The Amsterdam Hyperactive Pelvic Floor Scale (AHPFS) is a Dutch 30‐item condition‐specific self‐report questionnaire developed to measure these complex pelvic pain symptoms. The aim of this study was to translate the Dutch version into Norwegian, to assess the psychometric properties, and to present a valid factor structure.Material and methodsTranslation, back‐translation and a review of the back‐translated version were performed. Thereafter, a pilot test including feedback from six clinical experts and cognitive interviews with 11 patients from the target group was conducted. Next, a field test was performed among women who were (1) patients at the gynecological outpatient clinic/pelvic floor physiotherapist at St. Olav's Hospital, (2) members of the Vulvodynia or the Endometriosis Patient Associations or (3) female students and employees from the Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in a web‐based survey. To ensure a sample with symptomatic women, only women who scored ≥11 according to the Dutch prespecified factor structure were included in the statistical analyses (n = 232).ResultsContent/face validity demonstrated that the questionnaire was perceived as relevant, comprehensive and understandable. Some adjustments in the instructions of the questionnaire and the response categories were made, which lead to the Norwegian translation ACPPS‐30. Assessment of the questionnaire's dimensionality revealed a five‐factor structure similar to the original Dutch Amsterdam Hyperactive Pelvic Floor Scale (AHPFS) but without the Urinary tract infection factor and seven other items. The translated and modified ACPPS‐16 total score and subscales correlated as expected with scales measuring similar conditions. Test–retest reliability demonstrated good stability for scales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.85–0.93) and single items (weighted kappa values from 0.34 to 0.90).ConclusionsA modified Norwegian version ACPPS‐30 was presented, in addition to a shorter version with only 16 of the translated items distributed among five factors similar to the original Dutch version (ACPPS‐16). Both versions proved to be valid, stable and reliable tools to investigate complex pelvic pain symptoms possibly due to an abnormally high‐toned pelvic floor muscle.