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

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1 , 78 - 87 , 16.04.2026

Fatma Eken , Mehmet Gürhan Karakaya , Mine Argali Deniz , İlkim Çıtak Karakaya

https://doi.org/10.15437/jetr.1738932

https://izlik.org/JA23JK37XP

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

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

https://izlik.org/JA23JK37XP

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Patient reported outcome , Musculoskeletal diseases , Reliability.

Etik Beyan

After obtaining permission to translate the scale into Turkish from the developers of the original scale, ethical and administrative approvals were obtained from the Ethics Committee of Mugla Sitki Kocman University (date: 01.07.2020) and Suleyman Demirel University Research Hospital (date 19.08.2020, document number: 30856962-044-107693), respectively.

Destekleyen Kurum

None.

Teşekkür

The authors thank Baki Umut Tugay, PT. Ph.D., for contributions to the scale’s translation process, Feray Cinevre Soyupek, M.D. Ph.D., and Emel Taşvuran Horata, PT. Ph.D., for their support throughout the study.

Kaynakça

• 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.
• Gomez-Galan M, Perez-Alonso J, Callejón-Ferre ÁJ, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review. Ind Health. 2017;55:314-337.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5:194-197.
• Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18:233-237.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-163.
• 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.
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293-307.
• Shrestha N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. Am J Appl Math Stat. 2021;9:4-11.
• Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas J Paramed. 2010;8:1-13.
• Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br J Psychol. 1950;3:77-85.
• Piedmont RL. Eigenvalues. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014:1847-1848
• Larsen R, Warne RT. Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2010;42:871-876.
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
• 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.
• 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.
• Rosenberg N. Objective measurement of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive review. Diagnostics. 2025;15:1581.
• 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.
• 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.
• Akkubak Y, Külünkoğlu BA. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of arthritis research UK musculoskeletal health questionnaire. Arch Rheumatol. 2019;35:155-161.
• 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.
• 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.
• Vilagut G. Test-retest reliability. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014:6622-6625.
• Alpar R. Validity and reliability. In: Alpar R, ed. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability. 6th ed. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2020:528-638.
• 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.