- Ukrainian adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the BC-QoL questionnaire in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis
Ukrainian adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the BC-QoL questionnaire in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis
Modern Pediatrics. Ukraine. (2026).4(156): 98-104. doi: 10.15574/SP.2026.4(156).98104
Mazulov O. V.
National Pirogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsya, Ukraine
For citation: Mazulov OV. (2026). Ukrainian adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the BC-QoL questionnaire in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Modern Pediatrics. Ukraine. 4(156): 98-104. doi: 10.15574/SP.2026.4(156).98104.
Article received: Feb 04, 2026. Accepted for publication: May 12, 2026.
Based on surveys of parents and children with bronchiectasis (BE), quality of life (QoL) has been identified as the highest-priority treatment outcome. An international consensus study aimed at developing a core outcome set for paediatric bronchiectasis also identified QoL as a key outcome reflecting treatment effectiveness. The first disease-specific instrument developed to assess QoL in children with bronchiectasis was the parent-proxy Bronchiectasis Child Quality of Life questionnaire (BC-QoL). Until now, no Ukrainian-language version of this instrument has been available.
Aim – to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the BC-QoL questionnaire into Ukrainian (BC-QoL-UA) and to evaluate its internal consistency, responsiveness to changes in clinical status, and convergent validity in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.
Materials and methods. The questionnaire was adapted using a forward–backward translation procedure followed by cognitive testing. Psychometric evaluation was conducted in 22 children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis who were assessed twice: during a clinically stable state and during an exacerbation. Internal consistency, responsiveness to changes in clinical status, and convergent validity were evaluated. All scores are presented after reverse coding.
Results. The BC-QoL-UA fully retained the structure of the original instrument. Compared with the clinically stable state, the total score decreased significantly during exacerbation, with significant deterioration across all three domains in 20 of 22 children. Correlations between the total BC-QoL-UA score and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), as well as cough severity, were weak and not statistically significant.
Conclusions. The BC-QoL-UA demonstrated excellent internal consistency and high responsiveness to changes in clinical status in children with bronchiectasis. The absence of floor and ceiling effects indicates adequate discriminative capacity of the scale and supports its suitability for detecting individual changes in clinical status over time.
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Keywords: bronchiectasis, children, quality of life, questionnaire, cross-cultural adaptation, BC-QoL.
REFERENCES
1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 25(24): 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014; PMid:11124735
2. Chang AB, Boyd J, Bush A, Hill AT, Powell Z, Zacharasiewicz A et al. (2024). A core outcome set for bronchiectasis in children and adolescents for use in clinical research: an international consensus study. Lancet Respir Med. 12(1): 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00233-3; PMid:38070531
3. Chang AB, Fortescue R, Grimwood K, Alexopoulou E, Bell L, Boyd J et al. (2021). European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J. 58(2): 2002990. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02990-2020; PMid:33542057
4. Cronbach LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16(3): 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
5.Koo TK, Li MY. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 15(2): 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012; PMid:27330520
6. Marchant JM, Cook AL, Roberts J, Yerkovich ST, Goyal V, Arnold D et al. (2021). Burden of care for children with bronchiectasis from parents/carers perspective. J Clin Med. 10(24): 5856. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245856; PMid:34945152 PMCid:PMC8707334
7. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 63(7): 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006; PMid:20494804
8. Nathan AM, de Bruyne JA, Eg KP, Thavagnanam S. (2017). Review: Quality of life in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Front Pediatr. 5: 84. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00084; PMid:28596950 PMCid:PMC5442180
9. Quittner AL, O'Donnell AE, Salathe MA, Lewis SA, Li X, Montgomery AB et al. (2015). Quality of Life Questionnaire-Bronchiectasis: final psychometric analyses and determination of minimal important difference scores. Thorax. 70(1): 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205918; PMid:25323621 PMCid:PMC13589483
10. Roberts JM, Newcombe PA, Goyal V, Kularatna S, McPhail SM et al. (2026). Development and validation of a parent-proxy bronchiectasis child quality-of-life instrument: the BC-QoL. ERJ Open Res. 12(4): 01443-2025. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.01443-2025; PMid:42445236 PMCid:PMC13358714
11. Tavakol M, Dennick R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2: 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd; PMid:28029643
12. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M, Skarr D. (2003). The PedsQL 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity. Ambul Pediatr. 3(6): 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1367/1539-4409(2003)003<0329:TPAAPP>2.0.CO;2; PMid:14616041
13. Yost KJ, Eton DT. (2005). Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 28(2): 172-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275340; PMid:15851772
