Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a multidimensional experience similar to pain and is one of the most common clinical presentations in patients with respiratory diseases. Accurately evaluating the experience of dyspnea allows nurses and physicians to deliver better medical services to patients. The multidimensional dyspnea profile emphasizes the psychosocial factors of dyspnea and assesses immediate discomfort, sensory qualities, and the emotional responses of patients with dyspnea. At present, the validity, reliability, and test-retest reliability of the multidimensional dyspnea profile in patients with respiratory diseases in China are unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the validity, reliability, and test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and to assess the convergent validity between the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. METHODS: The factorial construct, intraclass correlations, internal consistency, and convergent validity of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile was evaluated using data from 231 inpatients with dyspnea from the respiratory department of a hospital. In the principal component analysis stage, 131 inpatients were evaluated. In the test-retest reliability analysis stage, 50 out of the 131 patients responded to the questionnaire again. In the confirmatory factor analysis, 100 inpatients from an independent sample were assessed. RESULTS: The principal component analysis showed that the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile had a two-factor structure: the immediate perceptual-related problem factor (6 items) and the emotional response-related problem factor (5 items). The convergent validity between the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile and the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale was significant and acceptable based on the average variance extracted (r = .56, p < .001). The confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good model fit and provided support for the construct validity of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile. Overall, the internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient of the Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile were good. CONCLUSION: The 11-item Chinese version of the multidimensional dyspnea profile has acceptable validity and reliability in patients with respiratory diseases in China. In the future, more studies should be performed to further explore its clinical application.