• Eur Spine J · Mar 2020

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

    • Marco Monticone, Luca Frigau, Francesco Mola, Barbara Rocca, Franco Franchignoni, Simone Vullo Salvatore S Department of Scienze Anatomiche, Istologiche, Medico-Legali E Dell'Apparato Locomotore, University of Roma La Sapienza, Rome, Italy., Calogero Foti, and Alessandro Chiarotto.
    • Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, Strada Statale, 554 - Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. marco.monticone@unica.it.
    • Eur Spine J. 2020 Mar 1; 29 (3): 530-539.

    Background And AimGrowing 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.MethodsThe 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).ResultsIt 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).ConclusionsThe QBPDS-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in patients with chronic LBP. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…