Skip to main content

The author’s reply

Journal Article


Abstract


  • To the Editor—I note with interest the comments made by Steven Wexner and Eran Choman.

    The Revised Faecal Incontinence Scale (RFIS) was originally developed by including the Wexner Scale and other fecal incontinence items in a large Australian community sample (N = 2915) and selecting the items with the best psychometric

    properties. Thus, there is substantial comparative Australian population data for the RFIS and the Wexner Scale. Our article states that this is an initial validation of the RFIS in clinical settings, and appropriate caveats are placed on the findings in view of the small sample size (N = 61). It was noted, however, that the internal structure of the RFIS in the clinical sample was very similar to that produced in the larger population sample1 which confirmed the stability of its descriptive system. Although a larger clinical sample would have been preferred, this was a time-limited study and it was acknowledged that ongoing clinical validation of the instrument would be required.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Sansoni, J. E. (2013). The author’s reply. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 56 (11), e411-e411.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84888319121

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/gsbpapers/401

Start Page


  • e411

End Page


  • e411

Volume


  • 56

Issue


  • 11

Abstract


  • To the Editor—I note with interest the comments made by Steven Wexner and Eran Choman.

    The Revised Faecal Incontinence Scale (RFIS) was originally developed by including the Wexner Scale and other fecal incontinence items in a large Australian community sample (N = 2915) and selecting the items with the best psychometric

    properties. Thus, there is substantial comparative Australian population data for the RFIS and the Wexner Scale. Our article states that this is an initial validation of the RFIS in clinical settings, and appropriate caveats are placed on the findings in view of the small sample size (N = 61). It was noted, however, that the internal structure of the RFIS in the clinical sample was very similar to that produced in the larger population sample1 which confirmed the stability of its descriptive system. Although a larger clinical sample would have been preferred, this was a time-limited study and it was acknowledged that ongoing clinical validation of the instrument would be required.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Sansoni, J. E. (2013). The author’s reply. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 56 (11), e411-e411.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84888319121

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/gsbpapers/401

Start Page


  • e411

End Page


  • e411

Volume


  • 56

Issue


  • 11