International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (2023)

Area of Assessment

Incontinence

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Cost Description

Can be used for clinical care and research for free. If used in research, permission required.

• The ICIQ is a self-reported survey and screening tool for incontinence.
• 4 main items (of 6 total) ask for rating of symptoms in the past 4 weeks.
• Take sum score of items 3, 4, 5 (items 1 and 2 are demographic) for the actual score.
  
• The final item is a self diagnostic item that is un-scored.
• Items (questions) 1 and 2 are demographic questions (DOB and gender). Item (3, 4, and 5) scores are summed for the total score on the ICIQ-UI SF
  
• Scoring scale: 0-21, minimum 0, maximum 21. A higher score indicates greater impairment from incontinence.
• Items regarding the average frequency and amount of leakage, the impact of leakage on quality of life (QOL), and the perceived cause of leakage over the past four weeks
• Item-level scores vary but range from 0-10. Item (question) 6 (self-perceived cause) is unscored.
• The instrument has been translated and validated into several languages. To see the availability of translations, visit https://iciq.net/translations

Number of Items

6 (4 relevant questions)

• Survey form

Required Training

No Training

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

General Health

• Score is 0 - 21 with a higher score indicating greater severity

• Ability to detect change in males and females

  (Video) #23208 Translation and validation of the Portuguese version of the International Consultation on...

• With conservative management- significant change in all symptom related questions (items 3 and 4) but not in “overall quality of life”

• With surgical management - significant change in all questions (items 3,4 and 5)

• The ICIQ-UI SF has been translated and validated through the evaluation of adult patients with urinary incontinence in other countries. English, Chinese, Malay, Taiwanese, Italian, Greek, and Japanese versions were reviewed.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Pleasee-mail us!

Urinary Incontinence in Females: (Nystrom, Sjostrom, Stenlund, & Samuelsson, 2015; n = 250; age 49.24 (10.23); mean score (SD) 10.2 (3.17))

• SEM = .21 (calculated from Nystrom et al., 2015) using SEM = Standard Deviation from the 1st test / (square root of (n) with n = 218)

UI in Females: (Nystrom et al., 2015)

• MDC = .58 at 95% confidence interval (calculated from Nystrom et al.(2015) using MDC = 1.96 x calculated SEM x square root of 2)

UI in Females: (Nystrom et al., 2015)

• MCID = 2.52 (2.56) (calculated for n=218)

UI in Females: (Klovning et al., 2009; n = 1,812 women; mean age = 36.5 (11) years)

• Slight = 1 - 5, Moderate = 6 - 12, Severe = 13 - 18, and Very severe = 19 - 21

UI in Females: (Karmakar, Mostafa and Abdel-Fattah, 2017; n = 432; age not reported)

6/21 minimum score associated with a 90% sensitive and 85% specific for success/failure after surgery with a high Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.83 (95 % CI 0.74 - 0.89)

UI in Females: (Klovning et al., 2009)

• Mean ICIQ-UI SF total score was 7.4 (3.6)

UI in Females: (Hajebrahimi et al., 2012; n=123 UI women, mean age 46.30 (13.14) years, 68% low literacy levels, Persian version of ICIQ-UI SF)

• Mean ICIQ-UI SF total score was 16.6 (4.07)

UI in Females: (Nystrom et al., 2015)

• Mean total score = 10.2 (3.17)

UI in Females: (Tubaro et al., 2006; n =50; age 21-24 years, Italian version)

• Mean total score = 9.60 (5.810)

UI in Females: (Al-Shaikh et a.l, 2013; n=37; age 39(9.9) years, Arabic version)

• Mean score = 11.5 and 11.3

UI in Females: (Karantanis et al., 2004; n = 95 women; mean age = 54 (12) years)

Mean score = 13 (4)

Urinary Incontinence:(Hajebrahimi et al, 2004;n= 64 women consulting for UI; mean age = 59 (3.8) years)

• Significant correlation at a 90% confidence interval (p = 0) between completion of the survey by:
  • The patient in the office
  • The physician in the office
  • The patient at home
• Adequatetest retest reliability for frequency of leakage (kappa = 0.73)
• Adequatetest retest reliability for amount of leakage (kappa = 0.67)
• Adequatetest retest reliability for interference with everyday life (kappa = 0.74)

UI in Females: (Lim, Liong, Lau and Yuen, 2017; n = 139 SUI; mean age 52.2 ± 8.61 years; n = 145, English, Chinese, and Malay versions tested)

• Excellent test-retest reliability indicated by ICIQ-UI SF intra-class correlation (ICC)

UI in Females: (Gotoh, Homma, Funahashi, Matsukawa and Kato, 2009; n=122; median age = 62 (53-70) years, Japanese version)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the total score (ICC=.91) as well as individual questions
  • How often do you leak urine (k=.61)
  • How much urine do you think leaks (k=.62)
  • How much does urine leaking interfere with your daily life (ICC=.90)

UI in Pregnant Females: (Chang, Chen, Chang and Lin, 2011; n=108 pregnant women, age 31.9 (3.18), mean gestational age 26.94 (7.93) weeks, test-retest done with a subsample of n=55 women tested 4 weeks later, Taiwanese version)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (r-0.75 for total score)
  • How often do you leak urine (k=.62, p=1.0)

• • How much urine do you think leaks (k=.78, p=0.41)
  • How much does urine leaking interfere with your daily life (k=.58, p=.76)
  • When does urine leak – never (k=.82, p=.18)
  • Leaks when you cough or sneeze (k=.78, p=.10)
  • Leaks when you are physically active/exercising (k=.65, p=.16)
  • Leaks when you have finished urinating and are dressed (k=-.02, p=1.0)
  • Leaks for no obvious reason (k=.66, p=.32)

UI in Females: (Tubaro et al., 2006; n =50; age 21-24 years, Italian version)

• Excellent Test-Retest r=0.96

UI in Females: (Huang et al., 2008; n = 42; mean age 53.5 (33-75) years).

• Adequate test-retest reliability (k=0.72-0.93, p<0.001)

UI in Females: (Al-Shaikh et a.l, 2013; n=37; age 39(9.9) years)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for items (k=0.72-0.81)

UI in Adults: (Avery et al., 2004; n = 634; mean age = 57.2 (23.4 - 101.3) years).

Adequate to Excellent test-retest reliability for items (k=0.58-0.90)

UI in Females: (Hajebrahimi et al., 2012)

• Excellent intra-class correlation coefficient of .84 for Persian version of ICIQ-UI SF

UI in Females: (Tubaro et al., 2006; n =42; age 21-24 years, Italian version)

• Excellent Intra-class correlation coefficients were .93 and .96 respectively for total score and quality of life item on Italian version of ICIQ-UI SF

UI in Females: (Lim et al., 2017)

• Adequate internal consistency for English, Chinese, and Malay versions.

UI in Females: (Huang et al., 2008; n = 42; mean age 53.5 (33-75) years).

• Adequate internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha = .71

UI in Females: (Al-Shaikh et a.l, 2013; n=37; age 39(9.9) years)

• Excellent Internal consistency for Arabic version with Cronbach’s alpha = .97

UI in Females: (Gotoh, et al., 2009)

• Adequate Internal consistency for Japanese version with Cronbach’s alpha = .78

UI in Females: (Hajebrahimi et al., 2012)

• Adequate Internal consistency for Persian version with Cronbach’s alpha = .75

UI in Females: (Tubaro et al., 2006)

• Excellent Internal consistency for Italian version with Cronbach’s alpha = .90

UI in Pregnant Females: (Chang et al., 2011)

• Excellent Internal consistency studied on pregnant Taiwanese women with Cronbach’s alpha = .80

UI in Adults: (Avery et al., 2004; n = 634; mean age = 57.2 (23.4 - 101.3) years).

• Excellent Internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha = .92

Urinary Incontinence:(Twiss et al, 2007; n = 26 men with urodynamically confirmed stress incontinence; mean age = 67.5 (1.6) years)

• Excellentcorrelation between Patient Global Impression of Improvement in men after perineal sling (r = -0.81)

Concurrent Validity

UI in Females: (Karantanis et al., 2004; n = 95 women; mean age = 54 (12) years)

• Adequate correlation (r = .458) with 24-hour pad test
• Fair correlation with mean frequency of leagage episodes in urinary diary (Kendall’s tau b=0.399, p =0.002)
• Poor correlation (P=0.2) with Stamey grade

UI in Females: (Klovning et al., 2009)

• Excellent correlation (r = .62) between ICIQ-UI SF and the Incontinence Severity Index

UI in Females: (Gotoh et al., 2009)

• Excellent to Adequate correlations with KHQ

Convergent Validity:

UI in Females: (Karmakar, Mostafa and Abdel-Fattah, 2017; n = 432; age not reported)

• Excellent correlation between ICIQ-SF and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (ρ=0.629)

UI in Females: (Hajebrahimi et al., 2012)

• Excellent correlation between ICIQ-SF and urodynamic study r=0.93.

UI in Females: (Tubaro et al., 2006; n =50; age 21-24 years, Italian version)

• Fair correlation with Short Form-36 (ρ=0.485)

UI in Adults: (Avery et al., 2004; n = 634; mean age = 57.2 (23.4 - 101.3) years).

• Convergent validity varies from poor to excellent between ICIQ-UI-SF, ICmale SF, BFLUTS, and KHQ

• Convergent Validity on perceived cause of leakage between ICIQ-UI-SF and ICSmale SF

UI in Females: The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI_I) (Nystrom et al., 2015):

• Adequate correlation (r = .547 (p < .0001)) between PGI_I with ICIQ-UF-SF

UI in Females: King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ): (Gotoh et al., 2009):

• Poor to Excellent correlation with total scores between KHQ and ICIQ UI SF

UI in Females: (Avery et al., 2004)

• IQ di¡erentiated between males and females, with women reporting more incontinence than men (58.9%and 25.2% respectively, P < 0.001)
• detected a lower prevalence of incontinence in the community sample than in urology clinic attendees (44.7% and 9 7.2 % respectively, P < 0.001)

demonstrated a clear association between sex and the perceived causes of incontinence in both the clinic and the community samples (P < 0.0 01)

Urinary Incontinence: (Abrams, Cardozo and Wein, 2012)

• The ICIQ was developed by 24 individual committees, comprised of experts on the subject. The Third International Consultation on Incontinence provided the ICIQ a grade ‘A’ rating and indicated it should be used for the basic evaluation of a patient’s perspective of urinary incontinence.

UI in Females: (Hajebrahimi et al., 2012)

• The weighted Kappa Index between the results of the initial questionnaire and the translated version was 0.70

UI in Females: (Huang et al, 2008)

• There were missing data < 2.0% of items, indicating patients interpreted all items as relevant, which has been proposed as a measure of face validity.

UI in Females: (Avery et al., 2004)

• Low level of missing data (mean 1.6%)

UI in Females: (Gotoh et al., 2009)

• Excellent: Japanese version of ICIQ-SF numbers for floor effect were reported as .8% to 4.1% and ceiling effect was reported as 7.5% to 23.1% indicating no particular floor or ceiling effects

UI in Females: (Lim et al., 2017)

• Large effect sizes (>.8) were present for each individual item score as well as the total score

UI in Females: (Gotoh et al., 2009)

• The scores for all of the ICIQ‐SF items and the total scores decreased significantly after treatment with surgery (Study 1,n = 15) or pharmaceutical agents (Study 2,n = 58). As expected, considerably larger improvements were noted in the scores of all of the patients who received surgery (median changes for items 1 and 2: −3.0 and −4.0, respectively; mean changes for item 3 and the total score: −6.3 and −12.1, respectively;P < 0.05) than in those of patients who received pharmaceutical treatment (median changes for items 1 and 2: −1.0 and −2.0, respectively; mean changes for item 3 and the total score: −2.3 and −5.2, respectively;P < 0.05).