Cited by 2,473Asthma and respiratory diseasesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchOccupational exposure and asthma

Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure asthma control

Open access
Juniper, E.F., O′byrne, P.M., Guyatt, G.h, Ferrie, P.j, King, D.r·1999·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

International guidelines on asthma management indicate that the primary goal of treatment should be optimum asthma control. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). The authors generated a list of all symptoms used to assess control and sent it to 100 asthma clinicians who were members of guidelines committees (18 countries). They scored each symptom for its importance in evaluating asthma control. From the 91 responses, the five highest scoring symptoms were selected for the ACQ. In addition, there is one question on beta2-agonist use and another on airway calibre (total questions=7). The ACQ was tested in a 9-week observational study of 50 adults with symptomatic asthma. The ACQ and other measures of asthma health status were assessed at baseline, 1, 5 and 9 weeks. In patients whose asthma was stable between clinic visits, reliability of the ACQ was high (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.90). The questionnaire was very responsive to change in asthma control (p<0.0001). Cross-sectional and longitudinal validity were supported by correlations between the ACQ and other measures of asthma health status being close to a priori predictions. In conclusion, the Asthma Control Questionnaire has strong evaluative and discriminative properties and can be used with confidence to measure asthma control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14d29.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Asking participants to rank a list of items has been considered a reliable and valid research method for assessing perceived relative importance.

    “Asking participants to rank a list of items has been considered a reliable and valid research method for assessing perceived relative importance (e.g.Alwin & Krosnick, 2004;Juniper et al., 1999;Fuchs & Sox Jr., 2001;Maio, Roese, Seligman & Katz, 1996).”

    From Teachers’ perceptions of declining participation in school music (2011) · cites this paper as Juniper et al., 1999

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Juniper, E. F., O′byrne, P. M., Guyatt, G. H., Ferrie, P. J., & King, D. R.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
1999-10
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
902
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2111609315
Cited by
2,473
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 141 · 2022: 144 · 2021: 133 · 2020: 137 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 106 · 2016: 121 · 2015: 111 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 132
FWCI
6.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
Keywords
asthma control, Asthma Control Questionnaire, questionnaire development, questionnaire validation, asthma symptoms, beta2-agonist use, airway caliber, reliability statistics, responsiveness to change, adult asthma
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Asthma, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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