Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Questionnaire

LoMartire, Riccardo; Lis, Angela; Skillgate, Eva; Rasmussen-Barr, Eva

doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4876-7

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Model t was evaluated via the in t and out t mean square (MNSQ). Signi cant MNSQ values smaller than 0.6 or larger than 1.4 were considered to mis t the model [28,29].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short Version of the Inventory of Parental Representations for Attachment Assessment Among Adolescents

Lamourette¹,

Ligier

Guillemin

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Inventory of Parental Representations (IPR), a self-administered questionnaire, was developed primarily to identify styles of attachment in adolescence. However, it did not present stable psychometric properties in the various American studies carried out. The aim of this study was to adapt the IPR in French and to provide a shorter version with improved psychometric properties and a sound content.Methods: The content validity was carried out by an expert committee and 10 adolescents. The study of the metric properties of the French version of the IPR was realized in a sample of 275 responses. In case of mediocre results in the CFA of the existing structures, the development of a new IPR structure was planned (Classical Test Theory and Rasch Modelling).Results: Out of 62 items translated, 13 needed adaptation. The analysis of its metric properties produced mediocre results. In a group of 275 adolescent’s responses, a step-by-step process was implemented. Content and psychometric property analyses generated a paternal Short-IPRF (15 items) and a maternal Short-IPRM (16 items) scale with sound content and good psychometric properties confirmed in an independent sample of 795 responses (Short-IPRF: Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.987, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=0.982, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)=0.027; Short-IPRM: CFI=0.953, TLI=0.927, RMSEA=0.068). Using Rasch modelling, the attachment was correctly measured overall especially for insecure attachment. Conclusions: A step-by-step process involving both content analysis and psychometric property analysis led to the generation of two questionnaires, a paternal scale, the Short-IPRF, and a maternal scale, the Short-IPRM.

show abstract

“…Model t was evaluated via the in t and out t mean square (MNSQ). Signi cant MNSQ values smaller than 0.6 or larger than 1.4 were considered to mis t the model [28,29].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short Version of the Inventory of Parental Representations for Attachment Assessment Among Adolescents

Lamourette¹,

Ligier

Guillemin

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scale was dichotomized into satisfied = 1 and 2, dissatisfied = 3 to 5. This single item is included in the Swedish six item Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Questionnaire (TOSQ-S) (117). TOSQ-S has shown acceptable psychometric properties (117).…”

Section: Patient Satisfaction (Ps)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This single item is included in the Swedish six item Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Questionnaire (TOSQ-S) (117). TOSQ-S has shown acceptable psychometric properties (117). PS is a transition rating score and used only at 3-, 6-and 12-months follow-ups.…”

Section: Patient Satisfaction (Ps)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our primary outcome ODI and NRS-LBP have been recommended as core outcome for clinical trials in non-specific LBP by international consensus (168). However, use of a single item to assess patient satisfaction has been questioned (117). The six-item questionnaire TOSQ-S with acceptable psychometric, also translated into Swedish, may have been a better choice to measure treatment outcome satisfaction of physiotherapy in patients with LBP (117).…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementing BetterBack – a Best Practice Physiotherapy Healthcare Model for Low Back Pain : Clinician and Patient Evaluation

Schröder

2021

Linköping University Medical Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Low back pain (LBP) occurs in all ages, and first-line treatment by physiotherapists (PTs) is common. However, national evidence-based LBP clinical guidelines are still lacking in Sweden. To facilitate guideline uptake, we developed and with a multifaceted strategy implemented a best practice physiotherapy healthcare model (BetterBack☺ MoC) with the aim of supporting management of LBP in primary care.The overall aim of this thesis was to evaluate a multifaceted implementation strategy and a best practice physiotherapy healthcare model for LBP.Methods: This thesis is based on one methodological study and three experimental trials with PTs and patients with LBP. In Paper I a mixed method design was used to translate, tailor, validate and feasibility-test the Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire (DIBQ). This tailored DIBQ Questionnaire (DIBQ-t) was used to evaluate potential barriers/facilitators during the implementation process together with evaluation of PTs' confidence, attitudes and beliefs in managing LBP. In a stepped cluster randomised controlled trial, PTs and their patients in three clusters were allocated to intervention group (after implementation of BetterBack☺ MoC) or control group (routine physiotherapy care). The proportions of guideline-adherent care were compared between groups (Paper III). This evaluation was based on PTs' adherence to eight clinical practice recommendations and three clinical practice quality indices (CPQI). The overall CPQI containing the five most prioritised recommendations are: no referral to specialist care; no referral to medical imaging for benign LBP; use of educational interventions; use of exercise interventions; and no use of non-evidence-based physiotherapy. Finally, in Paper IV patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared between intervention (after the implementation of BetterBack☺ MoC) and routine care. In Paper IV an additional secondary analysis was performed, comparing PROMs based on whether or not PTs had delivered care that met all five criteria of the overall CPQI or not.

show abstract

“…Our participants filled in the COMI and the reference scales at the clinic on the first occasion and at home on the second, prompted by a text-message. This methodology has successfully been used before [31]. The different environments in which the COMI was completed might however have influenced the stability of the data.…”

Section: Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the Swedish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low-back pain

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is a wide selection of instruments and questionnaires available, but many are time consuming in their administration, for patients, practitioners and researchers alike. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a short, selfadministrated, multidimensional instrument translated into several languages that covers five domains recommended in the assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. The purpose of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the COMI from English to Swedish and to test the face and construct validity and reproducibility of its results in patients with low-back pain. Methods Participants (n = 102) were included from primary and secondary care. The participants reported moderate pain and disability levels. All participants filled in the COMI, the Oswestry Disability Index and the EQ5D at baseline. Forty-nine filled in the COMI again after 7 days for the reproducibility part of the study. Results The instrument was successfully forward and back-translated. In the validation process, there were low floor/ceiling effects, with the exception of the symptom-specific well-being (floor) and work disability (ceiling) items. The specific COMI domains and whole score correlated significantly with the chosen reference scale scores to the hypothesised extent (Rho 0.30-0.60 and > 0.60 respectively). COMI reached ICC 0.63 (95% CI 0.42-0.77) in the reproducibility test and the separate items, ICC 0.41-0.78. Conclusions The Swedish COMI shows acceptable psychometric properties and is thus suitable to use as a short instrument for measuring important domains in patients with low-back pain. A future study should investigate the instrument's sensitivity to measure change after treatment.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Questionnaire

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Short Version of the Inventory of Parental Representations for Attachment Assessment Among Adolescents

Short Version of the Inventory of Parental Representations for Attachment Assessment Among Adolescents

Implementing BetterBack – a Best Practice Physiotherapy Healthcare Model for Low Back Pain : Clinician and Patient Evaluation

Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the Swedish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low-back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About