OBJECTIVE: The Neck Disability Index, the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire, the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale are widely used scales for assessing neck pain or disability. The aim of this study was to determine the most suitable scale for Turkish patients with neck pain. METHODS: All scales were translated into Turkish, administered to 102 patients with neck pain, then compared with regard to their construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, acceptability and usefulness. RESULTS: The scales were similar in their high validity, reliability standards and sensitivity to change, but differed in their acceptability and usefulness. The item about driving in the Neck Disability Index and the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire was omitted by 69.6% of patients for reasons other than a neck problem. CONCLUSION: All scales were reliable, valid and sensitive instruments, with similar psychometric properties. The scale that most adequately reflects the patient should be chosen.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The Neck Disability Index, the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire, the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale are widely used scales for assessing neck pain or disability. The aim of this study was to determine the most suitable scale for Turkish patients with neck pain. METHODS: All scales were translated into Turkish, administered to 102 patients with neck pain, then compared with regard to their construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, acceptability and usefulness. RESULTS: The scales were similar in their high validity, reliability standards and sensitivity to change, but differed in their acceptability and usefulness. The item about driving in the Neck Disability Index and the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire was omitted by 69.6% of patients for reasons other than a neck problem. CONCLUSION: All scales were reliable, valid and sensitive instruments, with similar psychometric properties. The scale that most adequately reflects the patient should be chosen.
Authors: Wim Jorritsma; Pieter U Dijkstra; Grietje E de Vries; Jan H B Geertzen; Michiel F Reneman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Eva Blozik; Wolfgang Himmel; Michael M Kochen; Christoph Herrmann-Lingen; Martin Scherer Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-08-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Wim Jorritsma; Grietje E de Vries; Jan H B Geertzen; Pieter U Dijkstra; Michiel F Reneman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jasper M Schellingerhout; Martijn W Heymans; Arianne P Verhagen; Henrica C de Vet; Bart W Koes; Caroline B Terwee Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Wim Jorritsma; Grietje E de Vries; Pieter U Dijkstra; Jan H B Geertzen; Michiel F Reneman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 3.134