Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Italian version of the craniofacial pain and disability inventory in patients with chronic temporomandibular joint disorders

Abstract

BackgroundTo develop an Italian version of the Craniofacial Pain Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) and investigate its psychometric abilities in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).MethodsThe CFPDI was translated following international standards. The psychometric analyses included reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test/retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity was investigated by matching (a priori hypotheses) the CFPDI-I with the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI-I), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS), the Italian Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I), the Italian Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I), and the Italian Migraine Disability Assessment Score Questionnaire (MIDAS) (Pearson’s correlation). Alpha was set at 0.05.ResultsTwo hundred and twelve patients with chronic TMD completed the tool. The questionnaire was internally consistent (α = 0.95) and its stability was good (ICCs = 0.91). As hypothesised, validity figures showed CFPDI-I strongly correlated with the NDI-I (r = 0.66, p < 0.05) and moderately correlated with the NRS (r = 0.48, p < 0.05), PCS (r = 0.37, p < 0.05), TSKI (r = 0.35, p < 0.05) and MIDAS (r = 0.47, p < 0.05). Similar estimates were shown by CFPDI-I subscales.ConclusionsThe cross-culturally adapted version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CFPDI-I) showed satisfactory psychometric properties that replicate those of the original version and, therefore, can be implemented in the clinical assessment of Italian people affected by TMD.

Craniocervical and Cervical Spine Features of Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

“…The study search strategy was presented in the form of a flow diagram ( Figure 1 ). A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria (three case-control studies and 29 cross-sectional studies) [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. Seventeen articles had been included in three separate meta-analyses.…”

“…On the other hand, four studies carried out a physical exploration in order to give a TMD diagnosis. Finally, in four studies, the samples had already been diagnosed with TMD [ 45 , 57 , 60 , 64 ], and in three studies, the TMD diagnosis criteria were not specified [ 41 , 58 , 66 ].…”

“…Neither of the case-control studies presented non-response rates for the participants. Seventeen cross-sectional studies showed fair methodological quality, with a score of 2 [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 62 , 63 , 66 , 67 ]; the other 12 studies achieved a score of 1 or lower, which is considered poor methodological quality [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 64 , 65 ]. The mean total score for methodological quality was 1.48, with a standard deviation of 0.68, and a range of 0–2.…”

Increased Risk of Migraine in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorder: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study Using a National Health Screening Cohort

“…Second, this study utilized a large population-based dataset, the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort, which was representative of the Korean population. There have been some studies about the association between TMD and migraine, but most of them were based on data from small populations [23,25,26,30,50]. Moreover, TMD participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years.…”

The 12 items Amharic version WHODAS-2 showed cultural adaptation and used to measure disability among road traffic trauma victims in Ethiopia

“…Validating a tool developed somewhere else; is essential as the way of life activities and ways of expressing emotions and social interactions are different among different cultures. Freely stated terms in one culture; could be a taboo word in other settings [ 41 ]. Besides, using a valid and standardized tool than developing a local tool will ensure the comparability of the finding across different cultures [ 42 ].…”