Reproducibility, feasibility and validity of the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence questionnaires

Figures & data

Table 1. Contents of the Groningen DeFeC questionnaire.

Categories	Questions	No. of questions
Demographic information	General information such as height, weight, gender, age, residence and daily occupation	8
Defecation pattern	Defecation frequency, stool consistency	2
Constipation complaints	Difficulties passing stool, incomplete or failure to defecate, anal pain, bloating and abdominal discomfort/pain	16
Constipation-related remedies	Use of diet, laxatives and/or more invasive therapies	14
Fecal continence	Different types of incontinence (i.e., soiling, solid, liquid, gas), time of incontinence and incontinence related therapies	16
Anorectal sensation and voluntary contractions	Urge to defecate, ability to hold stool, ability to differentiate between various stool types.	4
Urinary continence	Urination frequency, straining during urination, urinary incontinence, time of incontinence, nocturnal urination and urinary tract infections.	9
Obstetric and gynecologic history	Obstetric history and complications, gynecologic surgical history and prolapse complaints	11
Pelvic floor-related medical history	Bowel surgery history, presence of blood or slime in stools, medical conditions affecting bowel movements and overall medication use	8
	Total	88

Table 2. Reproducibility of the adult version of Groningen DeFeC questionnaire.

Category	κ coefficient^a	Interpretation^b
Defecation pattern	0.48	Moderate
Constipation complaints	0.54	Moderate
Constipation-related remedies	0.73	Substantial
Fecal continence	0.39	Fair
Anorectal sensation and voluntary contractions	0.44	Moderate
Urinary continence	0.60	Moderate
Obstetric and gynecologic history	0.81	Almost perfect
Pelvic floor-related medical history	0.50	Moderate
Average	0.57	Moderate

^a Weighted Cohen’s kappa (κ) coefficient.

^b Interpretation of κ coefficients according to Landis and Koch [31].

Table 3. Reproducibility of criteria and scores.

	Reproducibility
	κ coefficient^a	95% CI	Interpretation^b
Rome IV criteria
Functional constipation	0.41	(0.18 to 0.64)	Moderate
Fecal incontinence	0.26	(–0.08 to 0.60)	Fair
	ICC
Scores
Constipation Scoring System [10]	0.73	(0.63 to 0.81)	Substantial
Continence Grading Scale [13]	0.64	(0.51 to 0.74)	Substantial

^a Unweighted Cohen’s kappa (κ) coefficient.

^b Interpretation of κ coefficients according to Landis and Koch [31].

Table 4. Diagnostic accuracy of questionnaire-based diagnoses.

	Sensitivity		Specificity
	No.	%	No.	%
Rome IV criteria
Functional constipation	6/8	75	18/18	100
Fecal incontinence	17/22	77	17/18	94

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, et al. A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39:681–685.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:77–97.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar