Literature DB >> 28028688

Reliability, Construct and Predictive Validity of the Hong Kong Chinese Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.

Raymond Tsang Chi Chung1, Jamie Lau Sau Ying2, Susane Kwong So Fong3, Eric So Ming Loi4, Rainbow Law Ka Yee5, Thomas Wong Fu Yan6, Edwin Lee Wai Chi7.   

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability, construct validity and predictive validity of the Hong Kong Chinese version of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (COMPSQ-HK). Methods The COMPSQ-HK was developed using the forward-backward translation. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient with one-way random-effects model (ICC1,1), minimum detectable change (MDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Construct validity was evaluated by correlating the COMPSQ-HK with the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12. The predictive validity was investigated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses with sick leave >60 days and return-to-work for ≥4 consecutive weeks as outcomes at 1 year follow-up. The areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results The COMPSQ-HK was administered to 305 patients with acute/subacute low back pain and 160 patients with acute/subacute neck pain. The Cronbach's alphas and ICC1,1 ranged from 0.83 to 0.84 and 0.81 to 0.92 respectively. The MDC were 32.1 and 21.1. The 95% LoA were -32.4 to 31.8 and -15.4 to 26.7. The Pearson r ranged from 0.333 to 0.697 in absolute value. The AUC for the ROC curve analyses ranged from 0.59 to 0.71. Conclusions The COMPSQ-HK has good internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, satisfactory construct validity and predictive validity as a screening tool for patients with back and neck pain at risk of chronic disability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Low back pain; Neck pain; Screening; Validation; Yellow flags

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28028688     DOI: 10.1007/s10926-016-9689-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Rehabil        ISSN: 1053-0487


  31 in total

1.  Predicting chronicity in acute back pain: validation of a French translation of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.

Authors:  O Nonclercq; A Berquin
Journal:  Ann Phys Rehabil Med       Date:  2012-03-27

2.  Is the standard SF-12 health survey valid and equivalent for a Chinese population?

Authors:  Cindy L K Lam; Eileen Y Y Tse; Barbara Gandek
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Neck pain: Clinical practice guidelines linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health from the Orthopedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association.

Authors:  John D Childs; Joshua A Cleland; James M Elliott; Deydre S Teyhen; Robert S Wainner; Julie M Whitman; Bernard J Sopky; Joseph J Godges; Timothy W Flynn
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 4.751

4.  Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain.

Authors:  S J Linton; K Halldén
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.442

Review 5.  The epidemiology of neck pain.

Authors:  D G Hoy; M Protani; R De; R Buchbinder
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.098

6.  Comparison of physical treatments versus a brief pain-management programme for back pain in primary care: a randomised clinical trial in physiotherapy practice.

Authors:  E M Hay; R Mullis; M Lewis; K Vohora; C J Main; P Watson; K S Dziedzic; J Sim; C Minns Lowe; P R Croft
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jun 11-17       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Psychosocial variables in patients with (sub)acute low back pain: an inception cohort in primary care physical therapy in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Hans Heneweer; Geert Aufdemkampe; Maurits W van Tulder; Henri Kiers; Karel H Stappaerts; Luc Vanhees
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: the predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire.

Authors:  Steven J Linton; Katja Boersma
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.442

9.  The ability of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire to predict sick leave in patients with acute neck pain.

Authors:  Cees J Vos; Arianne P Verhagen; Bart W Koes
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Do psychosocial factors predict disability and health at a 3-year follow-up for patients with non-acute musculoskeletal pain? A validation of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.

Authors:  A Westman; S J Linton; J Ohrvik; P Wahlén; J Leppert
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 3.931

View more
  3 in total

1.  Validation of the Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire in patients with chronic neck pain.

Authors:  Anke Langenfeld; Carolien Bastiaenen; Florian Brunner; Jaap Swanenburg
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2018-03-02

2.  Development of a short form of the Hong Kong Chinese orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire.

Authors:  Raymond C C Tsang; Edwin W C Lee; Jamie S Y Lau; Susane S F Kwong; Eric M L So; Thomas F Y Wong; Rainbow K Y Law
Journal:  Hong Kong Physiother J       Date:  2018-09-13

3.  Can the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire or its subsets predict the evolution of patients with acute, (sub) acute and chronic pain?

Authors:  Natalya Korogod; Arnaud Steyaert; Emmanuelle Opsommer; Anne Berquin; Olivier Nonclercq
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.362

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.