Cited by 40Respiratory and Cough-Related ResearchPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Reliability and determinants of Self-Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire (SEBQ) score: a symptoms-based measure of dysfunctional breathing

Mitchell, A. J., Bacon, C. J., Moran, R. W.·2016·Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

Abstract

Dysfunctional breathing is characterised by an abnormal breathing pattern leading to respiratory symptoms. The 25-item Self Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire (SEBQ) has been developed to measure breathing-related symptoms and their severity but lacks thorough evaluation. To determine reproducibility, internal consistency and predictors of SEBQ score, 180 participants completed an online SEBQ with additional demographic and lifestyle questions. Two weeks later, 155 of those repeated SEBQ. Test-retest correlation of the SEBQ was high [intraclass correlation coefficient (3, 1) = 0.89; 95 % CI 0.85-0.92]. There was no difference in SEBQ score between test and retest (15.1 (11.6) [mean (SD)] versus 14.7 (12.4); P = 0.4) and the score showed a typical error (standard error of measurement) of 4.0. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.93), and a single factor structure for items was shown. Smoking status, reported respiratory disease, recent respiratory illness and female gender were positively-associated predictors of SEBQ score, and together explained 25.6 % of score variance (P ≤ 0.001). The SEBQ has high test-retest reproducibility and its score may be predicted by current smoking, chronic respiratory disease, recent respiratory illness and female gender, thus may be a useful clinical screening tool for dysfunctional breathing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10484-015-9316-7

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mitchell, A. J., Bacon, C. J., & Moran, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Tecnología y Comercio (NI)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Bacon, C. J.
Venue
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
Published
2015-09-23
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
111-120
ISSN
  • 0363-3586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1090-0586
  • 1573-3270
OpenAlex
W1721477515
Cited by
40
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
dysfunctional breathing, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, factor structure, smoking, chronic respiratory disease, sex differences, screening tool
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Respiration Disorders, Sex Factors, Smoking, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic Self Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review