Brighton Musculoskeletal Hasta Bildirimli Sonuç Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun psikometrik özellikleri

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Brighton Muskuloskeletal Hasta Bildirimli Sonuç Ölçeği’nin (BmHBSÖ) Türkçe kültürlerarası uyarlamasının güvenirlik ve geçerliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: BmHBSÖ, standartlaştırılmış kılavuzlara uygun olarak Türkçe’ye çevrildi. BmHBSÖ'nün anlaşılabilirliği ve içerik geçerliği 25 hasta ve 20 fizyoterapist üzerinde değerlendirildi. İç tutarlılık için Cronbach alfa katsayısı, test-tekrar test güvenilirliği için ise sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları (ICC) kullanıldı. Geçerlik, açıklayıcı faktör analizi ve Kısa Form-36 Sağlık Anketi’nin (KF-36) alt ölçekleri ile yapılan korelasyon analizi kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Muskuloskeletal problemi olan toplam 122 kişi çalışmaya katıldı. İşlevsellik ve iyilik hali alt ölçeklerinin Cronbach alfa değerleri sırasıyla 0.721 ve 0.766 olarak bulundu. Ölçeğin işlevsellik (ICC= 0.866) ve iyilik hali (ICC= 0.844) puanları iyi düzeyde test-tekrar test güvenirliği gösterdi. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin değeri 0,753 ve Bartlett küresellik testi anlamlı bulundu (X²= 247,635, p<0,001). BmHBSÖ, iki faktörlü yapıyla açıklanmış olup, varyansın %57,7’sini kapsamaktadır. KF-36’nın alt boyutları ile işlevsellik ve iyilik hali puanları ile arasında pozitif düşük ile orta düzeyde anlamlı korelasyon belirlendi (p<0,001). Sonuç: BmHBSÖ, muskuloskeletal problemi olan hastalarda fiziksel fonksiyon ve psikososyal faktörleri değerlendirmek için güvenilir ve geçerli bir hasta bildirimli sonuç ölçeğidir.

Keywords

• Hasta bildirimli sonuç
• Kas-iskelet sistemi hastalıkları
• Güvenirlik.

Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of Brighton Musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Abstract

Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish cross-cultural adaptation of the Brighton Musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM). Methods: The BmPROM was translated into Turkish (BmPROM-TR) in accordance with standardized guidelines. A total of 25 patients and 20 physiotherapists participated in the assessment of the BmPROM-TR’s comprehensibility and content validity. To assess reliability, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used for internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used for test-retest reliability. Validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis and correlation analysis with the subscales of the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Results: A total of 122 individuals with musculoskeletal problems participated in the study. Cronbach’s alpha values for the functionality and well-being subscales scores were 0.721 and 0.766, respectively. The scale’s functionality (ICC= 0.866) and well-being (ICC= 0.844) scores demonstrated good test-retest reliability. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin was 0.753 and Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant (X2= 247.635, p<0.001). The BmPROM-TR was explained by bifactorial structures and 57.7% of the variation. Low to moderate positive correlations were found between the subdimensions of the SF-36 and the functionality and well-being scores (p<0.001). Conclusion: BmPROM-TR is a reliable and valid patient reported outcome measure for assessing physical function and psychosocial factors in individuals with musculoskeletal problems.

Keywords

• Patient reported outcome
• Musculoskeletal diseases
• Reliability.

References

1. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, et al. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:2006-17.
2. Gomez-Galan M, Perez-Alonso J, Callejón-Ferre ÁJ, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review. Ind Health. 2017;55:314-337.
3. Blyth FM, Briggs AM, Schneider CH, et al. The global burden of musculoskeletal pain—where to from here? Am J Public Health. 2019;109:35-40.
4. Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Heng M, Rosner B, et al. Reliability of proxy-reported patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function and pain interference responses for elderly patients with musculoskeletal injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27:e156-165.
5. Kyte D, Calvert M, Van der Wees P, et al. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015;101:119-125.
6. Goldsmith ES, Taylor BC, Greer N, et al. Focused evidence review: psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33:61-70.
7. Bryant E, Murtagh S, Finucane L, et al. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): an assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Physiother Res Int. 2018;23:e1715.
8. Mokkink LB, de Vet HC, Prinsen CA, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171-1179.

9. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417-1432.
10. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186-3191.
11. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5:194-197.
12. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18:233-237.
13. Kahraman T, Genç A, Göz E. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into Turkish assessing its psychometric properties. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2153-2160.
14. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
15. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, et al. Form-36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç Tedavi Derg. 1999;12:102-106.
16. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-163.
17. Lim CR, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007765.
18. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293-307.
19. Shrestha N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. Am J Appl Math Stat. 2021;9:4-11.
20. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas J Paramed. 2010;8:1-13.
21. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br J Psychol. 1950;3:77-85.
22. Piedmont RL. Eigenvalues. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014:1847-1848
23. Larsen R, Warne RT. Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2010;42:871-876.
24. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
25. Kılıç A, Uysal I, Burcu A. Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on binary data. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2020;7:451-487.
26. Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do's, don'ts, and how-to's. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3:97-110.
27. Rosenberg N. Objective measurement of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive review. Diagnostics. 2025;15:1581.
28. Howe TE, Dawson LJ, Syme G, et al. Evaluation of outcome measures for use in clinical practice for adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the knee: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2012;17:100-118.
29. Şahinoğlu E, Ergin G, Ünver B. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for patients with musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27:3188-3202.
30. Akkubak Y, Külünkoğlu BA. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of arthritis research UK musculoskeletal health questionnaire. Arch Rheumatol. 2019;35:155-161.
31. Trotter TJ, Bumpass DB, Mears SC, et al. Does patient health literacy affect patient reported outcome measure completion method in orthopaedic patients? Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2025;16:1-7.
32. Feng Z, Cramm JM, Jin C, et al. The longitudinal relationship between income and social participation among Chinese older people. SSM Popul Health. 2020;11:100636.
33. Vilagut G. Test-retest reliability. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014:6622-6625.
34. Alpar R. Validity and reliability. In: Alpar R, ed. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability. 6th ed. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2020:528-638.
35. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ. 2020;11:245.