The psychometric properties of the Persian menopause rating scale

Leila Jahangiry, Robabeh Parviz, Mojgan Mirghafourvand, Maryam Khazaee-Pool, Koen Ponnet, Leila Jahangiry, Robabeh Parviz, Mojgan Mirghafourvand, Maryam Khazaee-Pool, Koen Ponnet

Abstract

Background: To measure the severity of menopausal complaints and determine the pattern of menopausal symptoms, a valid and reliable instrument is needed in women's healthcare. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) is one of the best-known tools in response to the lack of standardized scales. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the MRS in an Iranian example.

Methods: Participants were randomly selected from women referred to healthcare centers in Miandoab, West Azerbaijan, Iran. A total of 330 questionnaires were completed (response rate of 96.9%). Two samples were considered for analysis in the validation process. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the first sample (n1 = 165), and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done using a second study sample (n2 = 165). The psychometric properties process was concluded with assessment of internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Results: The EFA with Principal Component Analysis extracted three factors explaining 75.47% cumulative variance. The CFA confirmed a three-factor structure of the 11-items MRS. All fit indices proved to be satisfactory. The relative chi-square (χ2/df) was 3.686 (p < .001). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of the model was .04 (90% CI = .105-.150). All comparative indices of the model, including the Comparative Fit Index, Normed Fit Index, and Relative Fit Index, were more than .80 (.90, .87, and .80, respectively). For the overall scale, Cronbach's alpha was .931, whereas the alpha for the subscales ranged from 0.705-0.950. The intraclass correlation was .91 (95% CI = .89-.93), p < 0.001.

Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that the Persian model of the MRS is a valid and reliable scale. As a screening tool, the Persian MRS could be used to identify the pattern of symptoms among menopausal, premenopausal, and postmenopausal women to care for and educate them on how to identify and treat the symptoms.

Keywords: Health-related quality of life; Menopause rating scale; Psychometric properties; Reliability; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scree plot for determining factors of the Menopause Rating Scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A three-factor model for the scale gained from the confirmatory factor analysis (n = 160)

References

    1. Garcia F, Hatch K, Berek J. Intraepithelial disease of the cervix, vagina, and vulva. In: Berek JS, editor. Berek DL Berek & Novak’s gynecology. 15. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. pp. 574–618.
    1. Afridi I. Psychological and social aspects of menopause. Menopause. 2017;49:1.
    1. Matthews KA, Wing RR, Kuller LH, Meilahn EN, Kelsey SF, Costello EJ, Caggiula AW. Influences of natural menopause on psychological characteristics and symptoms of middle-aged healthy women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990;58(3):345. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.58.3.345.
    1. Bener A, Falah A. A measurement-specific quality-of-life satisfaction during premenopause, perimenopause and postmenopause in Arabian Qatari women. J Midlife Health. 2014;5(3):126–134.
    1. Avis NE, Colvin A, Bromberger JT, Hess R, Matthews KA, Ory M, Schocken M. Change in health-related quality of life over the menopausal transition in a multiethnic cohort of middle-aged women: study of Women’s health across the nation. Menopause. 2009;16(5):860–869. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181a3cdaf.
    1. Thurston RC, Bromberger JT, Joffe H, Avis NE, Hess R, Crandall CJ, Chang Y, Green R, Matthews KA. Beyond frequency: who is most bothered by vasomotor symptoms? Menopause. 2008;15(5):841–847. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e318168f09b.
    1. Cheng MH, Lee SJ, Wang SJ, Wang PH, Fuh JL. Does menopausal transition affect the quality of life? A longitudinal study of middle-aged women in Kinmen. Menopause. 2007;14(5):885–890. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3180333a58.
    1. Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Stojanovska L, Lambrinoudaki I, Apostolopoulos V, Chiofalo B, Rizzo L, Basile F. Preliminary results of a single-arm pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of visnadine, prenylflavonoids and bovine colostrum in postmenopausal sexually active women affected by vulvovaginal atrophy. Maturitas. 2018;109:78–80. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.12.015.
    1. Colonese F, Laganà AS, Colonese E, Sofo V, Salmeri FM, Granese R, Triolo O. The pleiotropic effects of vitamin D in gynaecological and obstetric diseases: an overview on a hot topic. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:986281. doi: 10.1155/2015/986281.
    1. Williams RE, Kalilani L, DiBenedetti DB, Zhou X, Fehnel SE, Clark RV. Healthcare seeking and treatment for menopausal symptoms in the United States. Maturitas. 2007;58(4):348–358. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2007.09.006.
    1. Potthoff P, Heinemann LA, Schneider HP, Rosemeier HP, Hauser GA. The menopause rating scale (MRS II): methodological standardization in the German population. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2000;122(5):280–286.
    1. Heinemann LAJ, Potthoff P, Schneider HPG. International versions of the menopause rating scale (MRS) Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:1–28. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-1.
    1. Wu H. Wen Sh, Hwang Js, Huang Sc: validation of the traditional Chinese version of the menopausal rating scale with WHOQOL-BREF. Climacteric. 2015;18(5):750–756. doi: 10.3109/13697137.2015.1044513.
    1. Rathnayake N, Lenora J, Alwis G, Lekamwasam S. Cross cultural adaptation and analysis of psychometric properties of Sinhala version of menopause rating scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):161. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0977-9.
    1. Harlow SD, Gass M, Hall JE, Lobo R, Maki P, Rebar RW, Sherman S, Sluss PM, de Villiers TJ, Group SC Executive summary of the stages of reproductive aging workshop+ 10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(4):1159–1168. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-3362.
    1. Sun CW, PJU KD. Questionnaire translation and psychometric properties evaluation. SEGi Univ Coll. 2009;2(2):45–51.
    1. Khazaee-Pool M, Majlessi F, Montazaeri A, Pashaei T, Gholami A, Ponnet K. Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to measure factors influencing women’s breast cancer prevention behaviors (ASSISTS) BMC Womens Health. 2016;16:40. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0318-2.
    1. Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 1975;126:237–240. doi: 10.1192/bjp.126.3.237.
    1. Heidari M, Ghodusi M, Rezaei P, Kabirian Abyaneh S, Sureshjani EH, Sheikhi RA. Sexual function and factors affecting menopause: a systematic review. J Menopausal Med. 2019;25(1):15–27. doi: 10.6118/jmm.2019.25.1.15.
    1. Heinemann K, Ruebig A, Potthoff P, Schneider HPG, Strelow F, Heinemann LAJ, Thai DM. The menopause rating scale (MRS) scale: a methodological review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2(1):45. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-45.
    1. Gazibara T, Dotlic J, Kovacevic N, Kurtagic I, Nurkovic S, Rancic B, Radovanovic S, Terzic M. Validation of the menopause rating scale in Serbian language. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(6):1379–1386. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3743-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner