Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Christakou, Αnna; Andriopoulou, M.; Asimakopoulos, Panagiotis

doi:10.3233/bmr-2011-0288

Cited by 13 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found an excellent, significant correlation between the Hungarian versions of the ODI and QDS (r 0.81) which was similar to the previously published French (0.9) [17], English (0.82) [39] and (0.80) [14] and Polish (0.82) [23] versions of the questionnaires. Greek [31], Turkish [32] and Korean [34] studies reported weaker correlations between the ODI and the QDS (r: 0.78, 0.67 and 0.72, respectively). This study has several limitations which should be mentioned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Cronbach-a for the whole scale was 0.95 which was almost the same as that published by Kopec et al for the original questionnaire (0.96). The factor structure of the final version of the QDS has been published previously by Christakou et al [31] only. They found that the items in the Greek version of the QDS loaded on six factors (movement, handling of large/heavy objects, bending/stooping, ambulation, sit/stand and bed/rest).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validation studies of the Spanish [16], French-Canadian [17], Danish [18], Chinese [19,20], German [21], Korean [22], Polish [23], Italian [24], Persian [25], Finnish [26], Turkish [27], Brazilian-Portuguese [28], Norwegian [29] and Greek [30] versions of the ODI have all been published. Nine validation studies on national versions of the QDS (Greek [31], Turkish [32], Polish [23], Persian [25], Portuguese [33], Korean [34], Dutch [35], French [36] and Arabic [37]) have been reported so far. All the papers above, in addition to comparison studies of the original English questionnaires [38,39], reported these PROMs as reliable and valid measurement tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…for the whole scale in these 5 studies ranged from .89 5 to .96. 5,16,17 We found moderate evidence for positive internal consistency of the English, French, Hungarian, and European Portuguese language versions of the QBPDS and limited evidence for positive internal consistency of the Greek and Turkish language versions. …”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…[1][2][3] It occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, interferes with quality of life and work performance, and is the most common reason for medical consultation. 4,5 To measure the construct of disability in patients with LBP, several self-report back-specific questionnaires have been developed. They are recommended by the World Health Organization as instruments to evaluate the efficacy of treatments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Properties of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) has been translated into different languages, and several studies on its measurement properties have been done.Purpose. The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties, when possible, of all language versions of the QBPDS by systematically reviewing the methodological quality and results of the available studies.Method. Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles with the key words "Quebec," "back," "pain," and "disability" in combination with a methodological search filter for finding studies on measurement properties concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of the QBPDS in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out by the reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for both the original language version of the QBPDS in English and French and all translated versions. The results of the measurement properties were rated based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al. Results.The search strategy resulted in identification of 1,436 publications, and 27 articles were included in the systematic review. There was limited-to-moderate evidence of good reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QBPDS for the different language versions, but for no language version was evidence available for all measurement properties. Conclusion.For research and clinical practice, caution is advised when using the QBPDS to measure disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Strong evidence is lacking on all measurement properties for each language version of the QBPDS. O ne of the leading causes of disability worldwide is low back pain (LBP). Most of the time, LBP is benign and self-limiting and can be considered as nonspecific LBP, as no specific musculoskeletal pathology is found. [1][2][3] It occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, interferes with quality of life and work performance, and is the most common reason for medical consultation. 4,5 To measure the construct of disability in patients with LBP, several self-report back-specific questionnaires have been developed. They are recommended by the World Health Organization as instruments to evaluate the efficacy of treatments. 4 Two of the most commonly investigated questionnaires are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) 6 -10 and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI). 11-15 However, previous systematic reviews on available questionnaires to measure disability in patients with LBP indicate that the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) 16 -18 is another well-validated and often recommended questionnaire. 17,19 -21 The QBPDS also is commonly used in randomized controlled trials. 20,[22][23][24] The QBPDS (Appendix) was developed in 1995 in English and French. 16,17,25,26 Contrary to the RMDQ and ODI, the QBPDS is based on a concept...

show abstract

The Italian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Abstract: The Greek translation of the QBPDS provided reliable and valid instrument for the evaluation of Greek patients with low back pain.

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Measurement Properties of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review

The Italian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About