ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06918392TRANSLATEUpdated Mar 25, 2026

Field-test and Psychometric Validation of the Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire in the Dutch Pectus Excavatum Population

An observational study in Pectus Excavatum, sponsored by Erik de Loos. Recruiting at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 12 Years to 18 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-25.

Sponsored by Erik de Loos · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Dec 2021; still recruiting 4 years 10 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
66
Ages
12 Years to 18 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

A questionnaire that can measure disease severity from the patients perspective in patients with pectus excavatum already exists in English (Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire; PEEQ). This questionnaire was recently translated into Dutch. Before this Dutch version can be used, it needs to be tested by a number of patients.

Data will be collected at three moments:

  1. Preoperatively: The PEEQ will be completed on paper during the outpatient clinic visit.
  2. Postoperatively: The PEEQ will be completed electronically 2 months post-surgery.
  3. Test-retest reliability: The PEEQ will be administered electronically at least two weeks after a previous assessment.
02

Conditions studied

  • Pectus Excavatum

Browse trials for

03

In context

Funnel Chest

79 studies on the registry are indexed under Funnel Chest; 10 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 66 is close to the median of 68 across 32 observational studies indexed under Funnel Chest.

Browse Funnel Chest studies →

Lead sponsor

Erik de Loos is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
12 Years to 18 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Participants will be identified and enrolled during their preoperative visit at the outpatient clinic of Zuyderland Medical Center by a member of the research team.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Eligible participants will be pectus excavatum patients aged 12 to 18 years old who are scheduled for a Nuss procedure. Parents or legal guardians will also be invited to complete the parent section of the PEEQ.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Exclusion criteria will be the inability of the patient or their parent/guardian to complete the corresponding section of the questionnaire due to language barriers.
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
66 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Pectus excavatum patients

    pectus excavatum patients aged 12 to 18 years old who are scheduled for a Nuss procedure, and their parents or legal guardians.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Structural validity

    A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's test of sphericity are performed to assess the adequacy of patient sampling before performing further structural tests. Threshold values of ≥ 0.70 in KMO test and p \< 0.05 in Bartlett's test of sphericity indicate the suitability of the collected data for factor analysis (6,7). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using principal axis factoring and a promax rotation method, will be conducted to identify the underlying factor structure for both the child and parent sections (8,9). These factor structures will later be subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using polychoric correlations and robust maximum likelihood estimation, to evaluate the validity of the structures derived from EFA (8,10). Within EFA, the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue \> 1), explained variance (≥50%), and interpretability principle will be applied to determine the number of factors to be retained. Squared multiple correlations are used to compute the communality

    Time frame: Pre-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire at the outpatient clinic visit. Minimum score of this questionnaire is 22, maximum score is 88, a higher score indicates a lower disease-related quality of life.

  2. Internal consistency

    Cronbach's alpha coefficient, a measure of internal consistency, will be calculated for each subscale. A value \> .70 indicates sufficient reliability of the questionnaire for application at the group level, while a value \> .90 implies suitability for individual assessment

    Time frame: Pre-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire at the outpatient clinic visit. Minimum score of this questionnaire is 22, maximum score is 88, a higher score indicates a lower disease-related quality of life.

  3. Test-retest reliability

    Test-retest reliability for each subscale will be evaluated using a two-way mixed-effects model for the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), type (3.1), with 95% confidence intervals reported (CI) (15). The strength of agreement will be interpreted following the guideline provided by Cicchetti (1994) (16): \< 0.40 = poor, 0.40-0.59 = fair, 0.60-0.74 = good, 0.75-1.00 = excellent. For individual items, quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa will be calculated along with its 95% to identify problematic items, with interpretation based on the standards proposed by Landis and Koch (1977) (17): \<0 = poor, 0.01-0.20 = slight, 0.21-0.40 = fair, 0.41-0.60 = moderate, 0.61-0.80 = substantial, and 0.81-.001 = almost perfect.

    Time frame: Pre-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire OR the 2 months postoperative assessment will be used as a baseline. Another assessment wil be performed minimally 2 weeks after one of the aforementioned assessments.

  4. Responsiveness

    The responsiveness of the questionnaire will be determined using the construct approach in which preoperative and postoperative scores are compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed data. The effect size will be expressed in Cohen's d and is calculated as the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference. We hypothesize that the total score on the PEEQ and mean scores per subscale improve after surgical correction of the pectus excavatum deformity as demonstrated by the original questionnaire (2,3). Responsiveness of individual items will be evaluated using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, as appropriate, to guide further item refinement.

    Time frame: re-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire at the outpatient clinic visit. Minimum score of this questionnaire is 22, maximum score is 88, a higher score indicates a lower disease-related quality of life.

  5. Smallest detectable change

    The standard error of measurement (SEM) quantifies the precision of the scores across different time points and is calculated as (18): SEM = squareroot of MSE Where: · Mean square error (MSE) is the error term obtained from repeated measures ANOVA The SDC represents the minimum change in points a patient must score on the questionnaire over time to ensure the observed change reflects a real change and not a measurement error. The SDC is expressed in points on the PEEQ and will be calculated for the mean scores per subscale, and the total scores of the child's section, parent's section and entire questionnaire. The SDC at a 95% confidence level will be calculated as (18): SDC = 1.96 x square root of 2 x SEM Where: * 1.96 is the z-score corresponding to a 95% confidence level * square root of 2 x SEM accounts for the error variance from both time points

    Time frame: Pre-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire and two months postoperative assessment. Minimum score of this questionnaire is 22, maximum score is 88, a higher score indicates a lower disease-related quality of life.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Floor and ceiling effects

    The floor and ceiling effects will be assessed by calculating the proportion of participants scoring the lowest or highest possible scores. Effects are considered substantial if \> 15% of the participants score at the extremes for a specific item or subscale (18).

    Time frame: Pre-operative assessment of pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire and two months postoperative assessment. Minimum score of this questionnaire is 22, maximum score is 88, a higher score indicates a lower disease-related quality of life.

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Janssen N, Daemen JHT, van Polen EJ, Coorens NA, Jansen YJL, Franssen AJPM, Hulsewe KWE, Vissers YLJ, Haecker FM, Milanez de Campos JR, de Loos ER; Chest Wall International Group Collaborator Group. Pectus Excavatum: Consensus and Controversies in Clinical Practice. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023 Jul;116(1):191-199. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.02.059. Epub 2023 Mar 29. PubMed 36997016 ↗
  • Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. Epub 2006 Aug 24. PubMed 17161752 ↗
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74. PubMed 843571 ↗
  • Cicchetti D V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284-90.
  • Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420. PubMed 18839484 ↗
  • Fayers PM. Quality of life : The assessment, analysis, and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2016.
  • Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. J Educ Res. 2006;99:323-38
  • Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2014.
  • Pituch KASJ. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM's SPSS. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.
  • Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Qual Quant. 2010;44:153-66.
  • Osborne JW, Costello AB. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research and evaluation. 2005;10:1-9.
  • Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.
  • Hoelzle JB, J. Meyer G. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Basics and Beyond. In: Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2012.
  • Watkins MW. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology. 2018;44:219-46.
  • Mokkink L, Prinsen C, Patrick D, et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. 2019. Available online: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing-checklist_final.pdf.
  • Janssen N, Daemen JHT, van Polen EJ, Jansen YJL, Hulsewe KWE, Vissers YLJ, de Loos ER. Translation, cultural adaptation and linguistic validation of the pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire. J Thorac Dis. 2022 Jul;14(7):2556-2564. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-252. PubMed 35928622 ↗
  • Kelly RE Jr, Cash TF, Shamberger RC, Mitchell KK, Mellins RB, Lawson ML, Oldham K, Azizkhan RG, Hebra AV, Nuss D, Goretsky MJ, Sharp RJ, Holcomb GW 3rd, Shim WK, Megison SM, Moss RL, Fecteau AH, Colombani PM, Bagley T, Quinn A, Moskowitz AB. Surgical repair of pectus excavatum markedly improves body image and perceived ability for physical activity: multicenter study. Pediatrics. 2008 Dec;122(6):1218-22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-2723. PubMed 19047237 ↗
  • Lawson ML, Cash TF, Akers R, Vasser E, Burke B, Tabangin M, Welch C, Croitoru DP, Goretsky MJ, Nuss D, Kelly RE Jr. A pilot study of the impact of surgical repair on disease-specific quality of life among patients with pectus excavatum. J Pediatr Surg. 2003 Jun;38(6):916-8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(03)00123-4. PubMed 12778393 ↗
  • Mohamed JS, Tan JW, Tam JKC. Quality of life with minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2023 Dec 20;11(12):407. doi: 10.21037/atm-23-1647. Epub 2023 Dec 6. PubMed 38213813 ↗
  • Janssen N, van Polen EJ, Daemen JHT, Franssen AJPM, Winkens B, Hulsewe KWE, Vissers YLJ, de Loos ER. Protocol for the field-test and psychometric validation of the pectus excavatum evaluation questionnaire in the Dutch pectus excavatum population. Transl Pediatr. 2025 Apr 30;14(4):694-699. doi: 10.21037/tp-2024-616. Epub 2025 Apr 27. PubMed 40386365 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form

Time frame: trough publication in a peer-reviewed journal

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Started Dec 2021 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Nov 2026, 59 months after the start.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Mar 24, 2025
First posted
Apr 9, 2025
StartActual
Dec 15, 2021
Primary completionEst.
Nov 30, 2026
CompletionEst.
Nov 30, 2026
Last update
Mar 25, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 25, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06918392
Lead sponsor
Erik de Loos
Responsible party
Erik de Loos (Thoracic surgeon, Zuyderland Medisch Centrum) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Apr 9, 2025
Start date
Dec 15, 2021
Primary completion
Nov 30, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Nov 30, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 25, 2026

Study contacts

Erik R de Loos, MD, PhD
Contact
e.deloos@zuyderland.nl
+3188 459 9719

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion