• Yi-Jing Lue, Ching-Lin Hsieh, Mao-Hsiung Huang, Gau-Tyan Lin, and Yen-Mou Lu.
• Faculty of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
• Spine. 2008 Oct 1; 33 (21): 235423602354-60.

Study DesignCross-cultural adaptation and cross-sectional psychometric testing in a convenience sample of patients with low back pain.ObjectiveTo translate and culturally adapt the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1 (ODI 2.1) into a Mandarin Chinese version and to assess its reliability and validity.Summary Of Background DataThe Chinese ODI 2.1 has not been developed and validated.MethodsThe ODI 2.1 was translated and culturally adapted to the Chinese version. The validity of the translated Chinese version was assessed by examining the relationship between the ODI and other well-known measures. Test-retest reliability was examined in 52 of these patients, who completed a second questionnaire within 1 week.ResultsInternal consistency of the ODI 2.1 was excellent with Cronbach's alpha = 0.903. The intraclass correlation coefficient of test-retest reliability was 0.89. The minimal detectable change was 12.8. The convergent validity of the Chinese ODI is supported by its high correlation with other physical functional status measures (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and SF-36 physical functioning subscale, r = 0.76 and -0.75, respectively), and moderate correlation with other measures (Visual Analogue Scale, r = 0.68) and certain SF-36 subscales (role-physical, bodily pain, and social functioning, r range: -0.49 to -0.57). As expected, the ODI was least correlated with nonfunctional measures (SF-36 mental subscale and role-emotional subscale, r = -0.25 and -0.33, respectively).ConclusionThe results of this study indicate that the Chinese version of the ODI 2.1 is a reliable and valid instrument for the measurement of functional status in patients with low back pain.

28 keywords...

hide…