Literature DB >> 23321978

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the oswestry disability index and the Quebec back pain disability scale.

Tamás Valasek1, Peter Paul Varga, Zsolt Szövérfi, Michelle Kümin, Jeremy Fairbank, Aron Lazary.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are widely used in spine care. The development of reliable and valid National versions of spine-related disability questionnaires is strongly recommended from both the clinical and scientific points-of-view. The aims of this study were to adapt and validate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Quebec back pain disability scale (QDS) for use with the Hungarian language.
METHODS: After translating and culturally adapting the ODI and QDS, 133 patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorder filled in the questionnaire booklet twice within 2 weeks. Subjects completed the Hungarian versions of the two PROMs as well as the WHOQoL-BREF validated as a general life quality questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale of pain. Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of the questionnaires were determined, as were the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) scores.
RESULTS: The Hungarian ODI consisted of one factor that showed good internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.890). The QDS showed a four-factor structure with Cronbach-α values between 0.788 and 0.917. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed. The test-retest analysis showed excellent reliability of the Hungarian ODI and QDS. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.927 and 0.923, respectively. SEM values of 4.8 and 5.2 resulted in a MDC of 13 and 14 points in the Hungarian ODI and QDS, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) between pain and ODI was 0.680 (p < 0.001) and the correlation between the ODI and the physical subscale of WHOQoL was also very good (r = -0.705, p < 0.001). The QDS total score and its four subscales correlated significantly with pain and with the physical subscale of WHOQoL (r > 0.4, p < 0.001). The level of disability measured by the Hungarian ODI and QDS was significantly higher in the surgical subgroup than in non-surgically treated patients (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Translation and cultural adaptation of the ODI and QDS were successful. Hungarian versions of the ODI and QDS proved to be reliable, valid PROMs confirming that they can be used in future clinical and scientific work with Hungarian-speaking spine patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23321978      PMCID: PMC3657068          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2645-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  43 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.

Authors:  D E Beaton; C Bombardier; F Guillemin; M B Ferraz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Active therapy for chronic low back pain: part 3. Factors influencing self-rated disability and its change following therapy.

Authors:  A F Mannion; A Junge; S Taimela; M Müntener; K Lorenzo; J Dvorak
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires.

Authors:  Petros J Boscainos; George Sapkas; Eugenia Stilianessi; Konstantinos Prouskas; Stamatios A Papadakis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Development of a French-Canadian version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation and validation.

Authors:  Isabelle Denis; Luc Fortin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Translation, adaptation and validation of the Moroccan version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale.

Authors:  Imad Bendeddouche; Samira Rostom; Rachid Bahiri; Aziza Boudali; Najlaa Srifi; Nada Mawani; Mariam Mengat; Dalal El Badri; Noufissa Lazrak; Redouane Abouqal; Fadoua Allali; Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2012-02-18       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 7.  The Epidemiology of low back pain.

Authors:  D Hoy; P Brooks; F Blyth; R Buchbinder
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.098

8.  A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness.

Authors:  Megan Davidson; Jennifer L Keating
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2002-01

9.  A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale.

Authors:  J M Fritz; J J Irrgang
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2001-02

10.  Validity of the French-language version of the Quebec back pain disability scale in low back pain patients in France.

Authors:  Murielle Yvanes-Thomas; Paul Calmels; François Béthoux; Anne Richard; Philippe Nayme; Dominique Payre; Bernard Laurent
Journal:  Joint Bone Spine       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.929

View more
  9 in total

1.  Validation of the Croatian version of the Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  Ivan Domazet; Jakob Nemir; Petra Barl; Krešimir Saša Đurić; Ivan Pašalić; Hrvoje Barić; Marin Stančić
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-09-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Indonesian version of the Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  Phedy Phedy; Yoshi Pratama Djaja; Singkat Dohar Apul Lumban Tobing; Luthfi Gatam; Didik Librianto; Asrafi Rizki Gatam; Nicko Perdana Hardiansyah
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  How is your proctology patient really doing? Outcome measurement in proctology: development, design and validation study of the Proctoprom.

Authors:  G J Vander Mijnsbrugge; C Molenaar; R Buyl; G Westert; P J van der Wees
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Quality and Safety Improvement in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Fan Jiang; Jamie R F Wilson; Jetan H Badhiwala; Carlo Santaguida; Michael H Weber; Jefferson R Wilson; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-01-06

5.  Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Yoruba version of Oswestry disability index.

Authors:  Chidozie Emmanuel Mbada; Oluwabunmi Esther Oguntoyinbo; Francis Oluwafunso Fasuyi; Opeyemi Ayodiipo Idowu; Adesola Christiana Odole; Olusola Ayanniyi; Olubusola Esther Johnson; Elkanah Ayodele Orimolade; Ajibola Babatunde Oladiran; Francis Fatoye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Urdu version of Oswestry disability index; a reliability and validity study.

Authors:  Fareeha Amjad; Mohammad A Mohseni-Bandpei; Syed Amir Gilani; Ashfaq Ahmad; Muhammad Waqas; Asif Hanif
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Genetic variants of interleukin 1B and 6 are associated with clinical outcome of surgically treated lumbar degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Adam Biczo; Ferenc Bereczki; Kristóf Koch; Peter Pal Varga; Aron Lazary
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 2.562

8.  Cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: an exposure-specific measurement for back pain patients.

Authors:  Jenny Riecke; Sebastian Holzapfel; Winfried Rief; Harald Lachnit; Julia A Glombiewski
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.133

9.  Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Arabic version of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.

Authors:  Hamad S Al Amer; Fahad Alanazi; Mohamed ELdesoky; Ayman Honin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.