目的:评价肺功能状态与呼吸困难问卷修订版在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)稳定期的信度、效度和反应度。方法:选取2008年1月-10月河南中医学院第一附属医院呼吸科收治的244例COPD稳定期患者进行问卷调查,以Cronbach,α、Guttman分半系数和重测信度评价问卷信度;以内容效度和结构效度评价问卷效度以效应尺度评价反应度;以应答率评价可能性。结果:问卷在COPD稳定期的Cronbach,α系数0.984、Guttman分半系数0.920,CA、DA和FA的Cronbach,α系数分别为0.945、0.972、0.974;问卷和CA、DA和FA的重测信度分别为0.925、0.814、0.937和0.872。问卷各领域与其所包含的条目相关系数绝对值在0.707-0.946之间,因子分析共提取4个公因子;CA和FA积分改善为较大效应尺度,DA积分变化属于中等效应尺度;问卷有效应答率90.4%。结论:肺功能状态与呼吸困难问卷修订版在COPD稳定期的应用具有良好的信度,内容效度较好,结构效度一般,能较好的区分治疗效果。 PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a revised version of the Questionnaire of Lung Function and Dyspnea in the Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Methods: A total of 244 stable COPD patients admitted to the Department of Respiratory Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine from January 2008 to October 2008 were selected to conduct a questionnaire survey. The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by Cronbach, α, Guttman semi-coefficient and test-retest reliability. Validity of the questionnaire was evaluated based on the validity of the content and the structural validity of the questionnaire. Response rate was used to evaluate the responsiveness. Results: The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.984, Guttman’s half coefficient was 0.920, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of CA, DA and FA were 0.945, 0.972 and 0.974 respectively. The test-retest reliability of questionnaire and CA, DA and FA 0.925, 0.814, 0.937 and 0.872, respectively. The absolute value of the correlation coefficient between each field of the questionnaire and its included entries ranged from 0.707 to 0.946, and four common factors were extracted from factor analysis. The scores of CA and FA improved to larger effect scales, and the change of DA integrals belonged to the middle effect scale. Rate of 90.4%. Conclusion: The revised version of the questionnaire of pulmonary function and dyspnea has a good reliability in the stable period of COPD, the content validity is better, the structural validity is general and the treatment effect can be better distinguished.