STUDY DESIGN: Psychometric testing of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: Cross-cultural adaptation of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and evaluation of its measurement properties. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ODI, one of the most popular questionnaires for chronic low back pain (LBP), has been valid, reliable, and responsive. Recently, a Swiss version of the ODI has been published, but there is no validated version for Germany to date. METHODS: The translated and adapted German version of the ODI (ODI-G) was validated in inpatients with chronic LBP during 3 weeks' medical rehabilitation care. The ODI-G was completed at admission, 1 day later, and at discharge. Comparison with both a generic and chronic LBP-specific measure (the SF-36 and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire) assessed criterion validity. RESULTS: A very high level of test-retest-reliability was found (r = 0.91). Criterion validity showed high correlations between the ODI-G on 1 side, and the SF-36 and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire on the other. Standardized response means showed significant changes when health status improved (1.38) or deteriorated (1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The ODI-G is valid, reliable, and responsive. It may be used to measure current state as well as changes in health status, and allows for cross-cultural comparisons. Further research comparing the 2 versions in German language seems to be necessary.
STUDY DESIGN: Psychometric testing of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: Cross-cultural adaptation of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and evaluation of its measurement properties. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ODI, one of the most popular questionnaires for chronic low back pain (LBP), has been valid, reliable, and responsive. Recently, a Swiss version of the ODI has been published, but there is no validated version for Germany to date. METHODS: The translated and adapted German version of the ODI (ODI-G) was validated in inpatients with chronic LBP during 3 weeks' medical rehabilitation care. The ODI-G was completed at admission, 1 day later, and at discharge. Comparison with both a generic and chronic LBP-specific measure (the SF-36 and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire) assessed criterion validity. RESULTS: A very high level of test-retest-reliability was found (r = 0.91). Criterion validity showed high correlations between the ODI-G on 1 side, and the SF-36 and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire on the other. Standardized response means showed significant changes when health status improved (1.38) or deteriorated (1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The ODI-G is valid, reliable, and responsive. It may be used to measure current state as well as changes in health status, and allows for cross-cultural comparisons. Further research comparing the 2 versions in German language seems to be necessary.
Authors: Sebastian Schützenberger; S M Schwarz; L Greiner; O Holub; S Grabner; W Huf; A Sailler; C Fialka Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Charly Gaul; Thomas Schmidt; Eva Czaja; Regina Eismann; Stephan Zierz Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Juraj Artner; Balkan Cakir; Jane-Anna Spiekermann; Stephan Kurz; Frank Leucht; Heiko Reichel; Friederike Lattig Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 3.133