Dataset Information

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

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-? 0.890). The QDS showed a four-factor structure with Cronbach-? 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.

SUBMITTER: Valasek T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3657068 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Valasek Tamás T Varga Peter Paul PP Szövérfi Zsolt Z Kümin Michelle M Fairbank Jeremy J Lazary Aron A

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 20130116 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>After translating and culturally adapting th ...[more]

PMID: 23321978

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOswestry Disability Index (ODI) is broadly used in clinical and research settings for assessing the disability level in patients with lumbar radiculopathy but it has not been translated into Urdu language according to the pre-established translation guidelines as well as the validity and reliability of ODI Urdu version has not been tested yet. The aim of this study was to translate ODI in native Urdu language (ODI-U) according to recommended guidelines and to measure its psychometric properties in Urdu speaking patients suffering from lumber radiculopathy.MethodsOut of 108 participants, 54 were healthy (who filled ODI-U) and 54 were patients of lumber radiculopathy. The patients were administered through ODI-U, visual analogue scales for disability (VAS disability), pain intensity (VAS pain) and SF-36 at baseline and after 3 days. Reliability was investigated through test-retest method, internal consistency, standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). ODI-U was assessed for exploratory factor analysis, construct (convergent and discriminative) validity and content validity. Alpha level < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and psychometric standards were evaluated contrary to priori hypothesis.ResultsODI-U revealed excellent test-retest reliability for total score (ICC2,1 = 0.95) and for all item (ICC2,1 = 0.72-0.98). Cronbach's alpha of 0.89 showed excellent internal consistency and moderate correlation between ODI-U total score and each item through spearman's correlation coefficient (r = 0.51-0.76). One factor structure was created, explaining 52.5% variance. There was no floor and ceiling effect of total ODI-U score. Content validity was assessed through conducting interviews with patients and incorporating expert's opinions. The discriminative validity was measured by independent sample t-test, where significant difference between healthy and patients (P < 0.001) was observed. The convergent validity was evaluated through Pearson's correlation showing moderate positive correlation of ODI-U with VAS pain (r = 0.49) and VAS disability (r = 0.51) but moderate negative correlation with all SF-36 domains (r = - 0.43to - 0.63).ConclusionODI-U showed adequate psychometric properties. ODI-U was found to be a reliable and a valid tool to measure the level of disability in Urdu-speaking patients with lumber radiculopathy.

Project description:Background contextWhen different health care providers use different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, it is challenging to integrate findings that describe particular patient groups or to establish treatment effectiveness across studies. It is therefore critical to develop accurate ways to convert scores between various instruments for clinicians and researchers to make comparisons across health outcomes.PurposeTo develop a common metric so that scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and scores on the PROMIS Physical Function can be converted interchangeably.Study design/settingData were collected from a prospective study. A single-group linking design was used.Patient sampleThe study population included 9020 patients presented to an orthopedic spine clinic from November 2013 to March 2019.Outcome measuresPatients completed the ODI and the PROMIS Pain Interference scale delivered by Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) at the same time prior to their visit with a spine clinician.MethodsEquipercentile linking methods based on log-linear smoothing approach and non-smoothing approach were used to establish a common metric across the two measures.ResultsThe two measures assess the similar contruct of pain. The correlation between the scores of the ODI and the PROMIS PI was 0.81. The standardized Root Expected Mean Square Difference (REMSD) values for gender, ethnic, and racial groups ranged from 3.55% to 4.81%. Hence, the assumptions for the equipercentile linking method were met. The crosswalk derived linked scores based on the log-linear smoothing method yielded small deviations (Δ = 0.09) from the observed scores. We then identified linked PROMIS-PI scores corresponding to the benchmark ODI scores for the five disability levels and for various categories of patients.ConclusionsThis study is the first to create crosswalks to interchangeably convert scores between the ODI to the PROMIS-PI in a large population of spine patients using the equipercentile linking method. The results of this study provide confidence in the validity and usefulness of the derived crosswalks based on the equipercentile linking approach. The crosswalks are helpful for comparing new and old studies on the two measures and identifying benchmark scores for various diseases and disability levels.

Project description:The need for cost effectiveness analyses in randomized controlled trials that compare treatment options is increasing. The selection of the optimal utility measure is important, and a central question is whether the two most commonly used indexes - the EuroQuol 5D (EQ5D) and the Short Form 6D (SF6D) - can be used interchangeably. The aim of the present study was to compare change scores of the EQ5D and SF6D utility indexes in terms of some important measurement properties. The psychometric properties of the two utility indexes were compared to a disease-specific instrument, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), in the setting of a randomized controlled trial for degenerative disc disease.In a randomized controlled multicentre trial, 172 patients who had experienced low back pain for an average of 6 years were randomized to either treatment with an intensive back rehabilitation program or surgery to insert disc prostheses. Patients filled out the ODI, EQ5D, and SF-36 at baseline and two-year follow up. The utility indexes was compared with respect to measurement error, structural validity, criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability according to the COSMIN taxonomy.At follow up, 113 patients had change score values for all three instruments. The SF6D had better similarity with the disease-specific instrument (ODI) regarding sensitivity, specificity, and responsiveness. Measurement error was lower for the SF6D (0.056) compared to the EQ5D (0.155). The minimal important change score value was 0.031 for SF6D and 0.173 for EQ5D. The minimal detectable change score value at a 95% confidence level were 0.157 for SF6D and 0.429 for EQ5D, and the difference in mean change score values (SD) between them was 0.23 (0.29) and so exceeded the clinical significant change score value for both instruments. Analysis of psychometric properties indicated that the indexes are unidimensional when considered separately, but that they do not exactly measure the same underlying construct.This study indicates that the difference in important measurement properties between EQ5D and SF6D is too large to consider them interchangeable. Since the similarity with the "gold standard" (the disease-specific instrument) was quite different, this could indicate that the choice of index should be determined by the diagnosis.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundThe Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a self-report measure developed to evaluate patients with shoulder pathology. While some validation has been conducted, broader analyses are indicated. This study determined aspects of cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the SPADI.MethodsCommunity volunteers (n = 129) who self-identified as having shoulder pain were enrolled. Patients were examined by a physical therapist using a standardized assessment process to insure that their pain was musculoskeletal in nature. This included examination of pain reported during active and passive shoulder motion as reported on a visual analogue pain scale. Patients completed the SPADI, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) at a baseline assessment and again 3 and 6 months later. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to assess subscale structure. Expectations regarding convergent and divergent subscales of CSQ and SIP were determined a priori and analysed using Pearson correlations. Constructed hypotheses that patients with a specific diagnosis or on pain medication would demonstrate higher SPADI scores were tested. Correlations between the observed changes recorded across different instruments were used to assess longitudinal validity.ResultsThe internal consistencies of the SPADI subscales were high (alpha > 0.92). Factor analysis with varimax rotation indicated that the majority of items fell into 2 factors that represent pain and disability. Two difficult functional items tended to align with pain items. Higher pain and disability was correlated to passive or negative coping strategies, i.e., praying/hoping, catastrophizing on the CSQ. The correlations between subscales of the SPADI and SIP were low with divergent subscales and low to moderate with convergent subscales. Correlations, r > 0.60, were observed between the SPADI and pain reported on a VAS pain scale during active and passive movement. The two constructed validity hypotheses (on diagnosis and use of pain medications) were both supported (p < 0.01). The SPADI demonstrated significant changes over time, but these were poorly correlated to the SIP or CSQ suggesting that these scales measure different parameters.ConclusionThe SPADI is a valid measure to assess pain and disability in community-based patients reporting shoulder pain due to musculoskeletal pathology.

Dataset Information

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

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets