Revision and validation of the “Constitution in Chinese Medicine Questionnaire (Elderly Edition)” based on the Delphi process

• Published in: Journal of Traditional Chinese Medical Sciences Vol. 9; no. 3; pp. 246 - 256
• Main Authors: Huirong Song, Minghua Bai, Ji Wang, Jing Xia, Qi Wang, Cheng Ni
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 01-07-2022
• Subjects: Chinese medicine; Delphi; Elderly people; Healthy aging; Reliability; Validity
• ISSN: 2095-7548
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcms.2022.06.006

Objective: This study aimed to revise the Constitution in Chinese Medicine Questionnaire (Elderly Edition) (CCMQ-EE), as well as evaluate its reliability and validity. The objective was to provide a more accurate Chinese medicine constitution identification tool for geriatric health management and help further research on the relationship between geriatric diseases and constitution type, etc. Methods: The Delphi method and a cross-sectional survey of the elderly population were used. From April to October 2021, experts in different fields were invited to participate in the questionnaire, and items were revised through the experts’ ratings and feedback. From December 2021 to February 2022, the revised CCMQ-EE was validated in the elderly population. Results: The coefficients of variation of rationality and importance scores decreased to less than 0.25 in the third round of Delphi. The Kendall coordination coefficients of rationality and importance in the third round were 0.15 and 0.17 (P = .031 and P = .007, respectively). The revised CCMQ-EE was established with 34 items. The factor loadings of subscales were between 0.39 and 0.92, and the fitting effects of other subscales were acceptable, except for the inherited special constitution. The Cronbach alpha and test–retest reliability coefficients of each subscale ranged from 0.65 to 0.83, and 0.66 to 0.96, respectively. The composite reliability and average variance extraction were between 0.66 and 0.84, and between 0.32 and 0.57, respectively. The reliability and validity of the revised CCMQ-EE were acceptable or satisfactory. Conclusion: The revised CCMQ-EE was developed through a three-round Delphi process and internal team discussion. After the verification in the elderly in Beijing area, its measurement performance was good. The updated questionnaire can probably replace the initial version to better promote health management and help healthy aging by identifying the constitution type of the elderly.