Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2022
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the low back pain treatment belief questionnaire and its clinimetric properties.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kanaan Saddam F, Al-Karasneh Mohammad Nofan, Almhdawi Khader A, Oteir Alaa O, Guimarães Isabel, Al-Omari Ali A, Khraise Hana'a
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire (LBP-TBQ) was developed to systematically measure patients' preferences about common treatments for low back pain (LBP). However, the questionnaire is not available in the Arabic language.
OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the LBP-TBQ to the Arabic language and assess its clinimetric properties.
METHODS: The LBP-TBQ was translated into Arabic version according to published guidelines. In pilot testing, the face and content validity of the translated questionnaire was assessed. Two hundred and fifty patients with LBP completed the translated LBP-TBQ for five common LBP treatments. In addition, a subgroup of 51 participants completed the questionnaire on two consecutive occasions to examine the test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the Arabic version of LBP-TBQ has three factors: (1) "credibility", (2) "effectiveness and fitness", and (3) "concerns", and this 3-factors model had the best fit for the data for all the five treatments. Cronbach's α of the total items ranged from 0.812 to 0.899, while the sub-scores ranged from 0.557 to 0.837, indicating moderate to high internal consistency. The ICC(2,1) ranged from 0.626 to 0.909, which shows acceptable to good test-retest reliability. Correlation with other LBP questionnaires was < 0.3, demonstrating acceptable discriminant validity. Finally, the questionnaire showed acceptable criterion validity for all the subscales and the general questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: The Arabic version of LBP-TBQ is reliable, valid, and appropriate to use in clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the LBP-TBQ to the Arabic language and assess its clinimetric properties.
METHODS: The LBP-TBQ was translated into Arabic version according to published guidelines. In pilot testing, the face and content validity of the translated questionnaire was assessed. Two hundred and fifty patients with LBP completed the translated LBP-TBQ for five common LBP treatments. In addition, a subgroup of 51 participants completed the questionnaire on two consecutive occasions to examine the test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the Arabic version of LBP-TBQ has three factors: (1) "credibility", (2) "effectiveness and fitness", and (3) "concerns", and this 3-factors model had the best fit for the data for all the five treatments. Cronbach's α of the total items ranged from 0.812 to 0.899, while the sub-scores ranged from 0.557 to 0.837, indicating moderate to high internal consistency. The ICC(2,1) ranged from 0.626 to 0.909, which shows acceptable to good test-retest reliability. Correlation with other LBP questionnaires was < 0.3, demonstrating acceptable discriminant validity. Finally, the questionnaire showed acceptable criterion validity for all the subscales and the general questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: The Arabic version of LBP-TBQ is reliable, valid, and appropriate to use in clinical and research settings.