{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02353896103896104, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016233766233766235, 'mean_word_length': 5.103960396039604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory: a revisit of their validity in women without a urodynamic diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES
We sought to assess validity of the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ) and the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) (long and short forms) in incontinent women previously urodynamically undiagnosed.


STUDY DESIGN
Post hoc analysis of responses to the IIQ and UDI questionnaires were obtained from a trial on a urethral device in community-dwelling incontinent women. Internal consistency and validity were evaluated against the 1-hour pad test.


RESULTS
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the long forms was high for the IIQ and moderately high for the UDI, good for the IIQ-short, but poor for the UDI-short. Correlations with 1h pad test were low and non-significant for both versions. Correlation of the short with the long forms was high.


CONCLUSION
In the community-dwelling population, without a urodynamic diagnosis, neither long nor short versions of the questionnaires correlate with the severity of the urinary incontinence as shown by the pad test. The validity of the current questionnaires in women without urodynamic diagnosis is questionable.