Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study that aims to assess psychometric properties of the Spanish version of The
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B). This questionnaire was created by Nikki Cotterill..et al 2013
and their properties has been evaluated and published. The authors of the present manuscript
has published the adaptation of this questionnaire to Spanish language and the assessment of
reliability and face validity. And now they present the assessment of further psychometric
properties.
The manuscript is very interesting and it will be interesting for other researchers and clinicians
measuring bowel symptoms in colorectal cancer. It is well written. But before publishing
something more can be done in order to improve the manuscript:
Background:
In the last paragraph the sentences ‘Sacomori et al. (2021) reported on the translation process,
face validity, and test and re-test reliability of the first Spanish version [14]. But there is still a
need to test other measurement properties’  need to be better explained in the sense that Sacomori
et al adapted the ICIQ-B questionnaire to Spanish and evaluated its face validity and re-test
reliability. Other psychometric properties of Chilean Version of the ICIQ-B need to be assessed.
Acordingly....
Participants
#Sample size (in the instruments sections) would be better moved  to the participants section.
Instruments
#In the first paragraph, first sentence,  I recommend to write only the acronym, as you have
written the acronym already.
#More information about the questionnaire is needed such us number of items in each dimension,
type of questions, likert answers and how each answer scores. All answers score the same?.The
original questionnaire has two types of questions. How often the symptom appear and how
bother the patient. Different type of answers and scoring. Please explain it. I suggest to include
the questionnaire version in a table or supplemental material.
#Also it will be useful to explain the type of answers of the The European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire complement specific for
colorectal cancer (EORTC QLQ CR29) and how they score.
Data analysis
#It will help if Statistical analysis is presented in the same order as in the  Results  Section or
on the other way round
#Construct validity:
#First sentence is much better to write. Table 2 describe the results of the exploratory analysis.
#As the questionnaire content has not been explained properly it is difficult to understand the
items selected for the exploratory analyse. Please explain the items selection criteria for the
exploratory analysis.
Discusion
Construct validity measured with exploratory analysis seems to be different than the original.
Please explain how this affect validity.
Pg 9 paragraph about gender differences. Comments on references 24 and 25 and 27 have no
sense as they are different population of the study and is not worthwhile to mention them. I will
recommend to discuss on the fact that how relevant is this discrepancy with other studies and
possible explanations for these differences.
For me a limitation is not adding another measure similar to ICIQ_B questionnaire to measure
criterion validity.
I suggest to include a paragraph with recommendations for use of the ICIQ-B questionnaire for
clinical practice and research, what are the limitations and proposals for future refinement if
considered.
CONCLUSIONS
#I missed a conclusions paragraph
REFERENCES
Please review references as they are not presented according BMC norms.
Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study that aims to assess psychometric properties of the Spanish version of The
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B). This questionnaire was created by Nikki Cotterill..et al 2013
and their properties has been evaluated and published. The authors of the present manuscript
has published the adaptation of this questionnaire to Spanish language and the assessment of
reliability and face validity. And now they present the assessment of further psychometric
properties.
The manuscript is very interesting and it will be interesting for other researchers and clinicians
measuring bowel symptoms in colorectal cancer. It is well written. But before publishing
something more can be done in order to improve the manuscript:
Background:
In the last paragraph the sentences ‘Sacomori et al. (2021) reported on the translation process,
face validity, and test and re-test reliability of the first Spanish version [14]. But there is still a
need to test other measurement properties’  need to be better explained in the sense that Sacomori
et al adapted the ICIQ-B questionnaire to Spanish and evaluated its face validity and re-test
reliability. Other psychometric properties of Chilean Version of the ICIQ-B need to be assessed.
Acordingly....
Participants
#Sample size (in the instruments sections) would be better moved  to the participants section.
Instruments
#In the first paragraph, first sentence,  I recommend to write only the acronym, as you have
written the acronym already.
#More information about the questionnaire is needed such us number of items in each dimension,
type of questions, likert answers and how each answer scores. All answers score the same?.The
original questionnaire has two types of questions. How often the symptom appear and how
bother the patient. Different type of answers and scoring. Please explain it. I suggest to include
the questionnaire version in a table or supplemental material.
#Also it will be useful to explain the type of answers of the The European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire complement specific for
colorectal cancer (EORTC QLQ CR29) and how they score.
Data analysis
#It will help if Statistical analysis is presented in the same order as in the  Results  Section or
on the other way round
#Construct validity:
#First sentence is much better to write. Table 2 describe the results of the exploratory analysis.
#As the questionnaire content has not been explained properly it is difficult to understand the
items selected for the exploratory analyse. Please explain the items selection criteria for the
exploratory analysis.
Discusion
Construct validity measured with exploratory analysis seems to be different than the original.
Please explain how this affect validity.
Pg 9 paragraph about gender differences. Comments on references 24 and 25 and 27 have no
sense as they are different population of the study and is not worthwhile to mention them. I will
recommend to discuss on the fact that how relevant is this discrepancy with other studies and
possible explanations for these differences.
For me a limitation is not adding another measure similar to ICIQ_B questionnaire to measure
criterion validity.
I suggest to include a paragraph with recommendations for use of the ICIQ-B questionnaire for
clinical practice and research, what are the limitations and proposals for future refinement if
considered.
CONCLUSIONS
#I missed a conclusions paragraph
REFERENCES
Please review references as they are not presented according BMC norms.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study that aims to assess psychometric properties of the Spanish version of The
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B). This questionnaire was created by Nikki Cotterill..et al 2013
and their properties has been evaluated and published. The authors of the present manuscript
has published the adaptation of this questionnaire to Spanish language and the assessment of
reliability and face validity. And now they present the assessment of further psychometric
properties.
The manuscript is very interesting and it will be interesting for other researchers and clinicians
measuring bowel symptoms in colorectal cancer. It is well written. But before publishing
something more can be done in order to improve the manuscript:
Background:
In the last paragraph the sentences ‘Sacomori et al. (2021) reported on the translation process,
face validity, and test and re-test reliability of the first Spanish version [14]. But there is still a
need to test other measurement properties’  need to be better explained in the sense that Sacomori
et al adapted the ICIQ-B questionnaire to Spanish and evaluated its face validity and re-test
reliability. Other psychometric properties of Chilean Version of the ICIQ-B need to be assessed.
Acordingly....
Participants
#Sample size (in the instruments sections) would be better moved  to the participants section.
Instruments
#In the first paragraph, first sentence,  I recommend to write only the acronym, as you have
written the acronym already.
#More information about the questionnaire is needed such us number of items in each dimension,
type of questions, likert answers and how each answer scores. All answers score the same?.The
original questionnaire has two types of questions. How often the symptom appear and how
bother the patient. Different type of answers and scoring. Please explain it. I suggest to include
the questionnaire version in a table or supplemental material.
#Also it will be useful to explain the type of answers of the The European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire complement specific for
colorectal cancer (EORTC QLQ CR29) and how they score.
Data analysis
#It will help if Statistical analysis is presented in the same order as in the  Results  Section or
on the other way round
#Construct validity:
#First sentence is much better to write. Table 2 describe the results of the exploratory analysis.
#As the questionnaire content has not been explained properly it is difficult to understand the
items selected for the exploratory analyse. Please explain the items selection criteria for the
exploratory analysis.
Discusion
Construct validity measured with exploratory analysis seems to be different than the original.
Please explain how this affect validity.
Pg 9 paragraph about gender differences. Comments on references 24 and 25 and 27 have no
sense as they are different population of the study and is not worthwhile to mention them. I will
recommend to discuss on the fact that how relevant is this discrepancy with other studies and
possible explanations for these differences.
For me a limitation is not adding another measure similar to ICIQ_B questionnaire to measure
criterion validity.
I suggest to include a paragraph with recommendations for use of the ICIQ-B questionnaire for
clinical practice and research, what are the limitations and proposals for future refinement if
considered.
CONCLUSIONS
#I missed a conclusions paragraph
REFERENCES
Please review references as they are not presented according BMC norms.
assistant