ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Dutch Translation and Validation of the Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q).
Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q) is a generic, multidimensional scale that measures patients' expectations of medical and psychological treatments. Currently, it is available in English and German only. This study aims to translate the TEX-Q into Dutch and evaluate its psychometric properties. Patients and Methods: The TEX-Q was translated into Dutch following international guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. The Dutch version was tested in 163 gynaecological outpatients starting new treatments, a group suitable for validation due to their diverse treatment experiences. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a sample of 25 gynaecological outpatients. We examined data completeness (ie, no missing data), score distributions, internal consistency, construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity was tested through correlations with Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) and a single item from Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). Discriminant validity was assessed using Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Results: Data completeness was 89%. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's α, was good for most subscales, with values mostly above 0.75, except for the 'Process" subscale (Cronbach's α = 0.55). The mean TEX-Q score showed moderate to strong correlations with CEQ and the B-IPQ item (r = 0.29-0.55). Correlations with discriminant measures like LOT-R, GSES, GAD-7 and PHQ-9 were low (r = 0.22, 0.23, -0.17, -0.14 respectively). CFA revealed an acceptable six-factor model. Factor loadings were high (minimum of 0.76). The test-retest reliability was moderate for the mean TEX-Q score (ICC = 0.72). Conclusion: The Dutch version of the TEX-Q demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability, making it suitable for research and clinical practice in gynaecology. Further validation across diverse clinical populations is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.