• L Nusbaum, J Natour, M B Ferraz, and J Goldenberg.
• Disciplina de Reumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
• Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2001 Feb 1;34(2):203-10.

AbstractThe purpose of the present study was to translate the Roland-Morris (RM) questionnaire into Brazilian-Portuguese and adapt and validate it. First 3 English teachers independently translated the original questionnaire into Brazilian-Portuguese and a consensus version was generated. Later, 3 other translators, blind to the original questionnaire, performed a back translation. This version was then compared with the original English questionnaire. Discrepancies were discussed and solved by a panel of 3 rheumatologists and the final Brazilian version was established (Brazil-RM). This version was then pretested on 30 chronic low back pain patients consecutively selected from the spine disorders outpatient clinic. In addition to the traditional clinical outcome measures, the Brazil-RM, a 6-point pain scale (from no pain to unbearable pain), and its numerical pain rating scale (PS) (0 to 5) and a visual analog scale (VAS) (0 to 10) were administered twice by one interviewer (1 week apart) and once by one independent interviewer. Spearman's correlation coefficient (SCC) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed to assess test-retest and interobserver reliability. Cross-sectional construct validity was evaluated using the SCC. In the pretesting session, all questions were well understood by the patients. The mean time of questionnaire administration was 4 min and 53 s. The SCC and ICC were 0.88 (P<0.01) and 0.94, respectively, for the test-retest reliability and 0.86 (P<0.01) and 0.95, respectively, for interobserver reliability. The correlation coefficient was 0.80 (P<0.01) between the PS and Brazil-RM score and 0.79 (P<0.01) between the VAS and Brazil-RM score. We conclude that the Brazil-RM was successfully translated and adapted for application to Brazilian patients, with satisfactory reliability and cross-sectional construct validity.

16 keywords...

hide…