Marco Monticone1,2, Luca Frigau3, Francesco Mola3, Barbara Rocca4, Franco Franchignoni5, Salvatore Simone Vullo6, Calogero Foti7, Alessandro Chiarotto8,9. 1. Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, Strada Statale, 554 - Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. marco.monticone@unica.it. 2. Department of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, Neurorehabilitation Unit, G. Brotzu Hospital, Cagliari, Italy. marco.monticone@unica.it. 3. Department of Economics and Business Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. 4. ICS Maugeri, IRCCS, Lissone, Italy. 5. ICS Maugeri, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy. 6. Department of Scienze Anatomiche, Istologiche, Medico-Legali E Dell'Apparato Locomotore, University of Roma La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. 7. Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. 8. Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Growing attention is being given to physical functioning measures to assess interventions for low back pain (LBP). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (QBPDS) has never been validated in Italian patients, and the aim of the study was culturally adapting and validating the Italian version of the QBPDS (QBPDS-I), to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: The QBPDS-I was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the prefinal version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included structural validity by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC 2.1), measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC), construct validity by assessing hypotheses of QBPDS correlations with the Roland Morris Disability Scale (RMDQ), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) and a pain numerical rating scale (NRS) (Spearman's correlations). RESULTS: It took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the QBPDS-I. The questionnaire was administered to 201 subjects with chronic LBP and was well accepted. EFA suggested a one-factor 20-item solution (first factor variance explained = 54.7%). Internal consistency (α = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90) were excellent. The MDC was 12 scale points. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: RMDQ (r = 0.40), ODI (r = 0.48) and NRS (r = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The QBPDS-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in patients with chronic LBP. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Growing attention is being given to physical functioning measures to assess interventions for low back pain (LBP). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (QBPDS) has never been validated in Italian patients, and the aim of the study was culturally adapting and validating the Italian version of the QBPDS (QBPDS-I), to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: The QBPDS-I was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the prefinal version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included structural validity by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC 2.1), measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC), construct validity by assessing hypotheses of QBPDS correlations with the Roland Morris Disability Scale (RMDQ), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) and a pain numerical rating scale (NRS) (Spearman's correlations). RESULTS: It took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the QBPDS-I. The questionnaire was administered to 201 subjects with chronic LBP and was well accepted. EFA suggested a one-factor 20-item solution (first factor variance explained = 54.7%). Internal consistency (α = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90) were excellent. The MDC was 12 scale points. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: RMDQ (r = 0.40), ODI (r = 0.48) and NRS (r = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The QBPDS-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in patients with chronic LBP. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic low back pain; Cross-cultural adaptation; Reliability; Sensitivity to change; Validity
Authors: Jens R Chapman; Daniel C Norvell; Jeffrey T Hermsmeyer; Richard J Bransford; John DeVine; Matthew J McGirt; Michael J Lee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alessandro Chiarotto; Richard A Deyo; Caroline B Terwee; Maarten Boers; Rachelle Buchbinder; Terry P Corbin; Leonardo O P Costa; Nadine E Foster; Margreth Grotle; Bart W Koes; Francisco M Kovacs; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Chris G Maher; Adam M Pearson; Wilco C Peul; Mark L Schoene; Dennis C Turk; Maurits W van Tulder; Raymond W Ostelo Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-04-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: J A Kopec; J M Esdaile; M Abrahamowicz; L Abenhaim; S Wood-Dauphinee; D L Lamping; J I Williams Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jenny Riecke; Sebastian Holzapfel; Winfried Rief; Harald Lachnit; Julia A Glombiewski Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 3.133