Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, 82 - 89, 01.08.2017

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı bel ağrısı olan hastalarda Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın (FBAS) Türkçe uyarlamasını yapmak, geçerlik ve güvenirliğini araştırmaktı.

Yöntem: Çalışmaya Türkçe okuma-yazma bilen, non-spesifik bel ağrısı tanısı alan 18-79 yaş aralığında 120 birey dahil edildi. Tüm bireylere FBAS, Vizüel Analog Skala (VAS), Roland Morris Disabilite Anketi (RMDA), Oswestry Özürlülük İndeksi (OÖİ) ve KF-36 Yaşam Kalitesi Anketi (KF-36) uygulandı. Güvenirlik için test-tekrar test güvenirliği ve iç tutarlılık analizleri yapıldı. Yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile,FBAS kriter geçerliği RMDA, OÖİ ve KF-36 fiziksel fonksiyon alt grubu korelasyon analiziyle incelendi.

Bulgular: Test-tekrar test korelasyon katsayısı r=0.87; p<0.01, Cronbach alfa 0.899, madde toplam puan korelasyon katsayıları 0.484 ile 0.710 idi. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde skalanın tek faktörlü yapıda olduğu ve varyansın %48.172'sini açıkladığı görüldü. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile skalanın tek faktörlü model yapısı doğrulandı. FBAS; RMDA (r=-0.693, p<0.001), OÖİ (r=-0.794, p<0.001) ve KF-36’nın fiziksel fonksiyon alt grubuyla (r=0.607, p<0.001) orta düzey korelasyon gösterdiği bulundu.

Sonuç: FBAS'ın Türkçe versiyonu bel ağrısı olan hastalarda fonksiyon kaybını ölçmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu görüldü.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Krismer M, van Tulder M. Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:77-91.
  • 2. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publ. 2015;doi:10.1590/S0034- 8910.2015049005874.
  • 3. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:2028-37.
  • 4. Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people's lives. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2014;doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-50.
  • 5. Pinheiro MB, Ferreira ML, Refshauge K, et al. Symptoms of depression as a prognostic factor for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2016;16:105-116.
  • 6. Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine. 2000;25:1148-1156.
  • 7. Moore JE. Chronic low back pain and psychosocial issues. Phys Med Rehabil Cli. 2010;21:801-815.
  • 8. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23:2003-2013.
  • 9. Patrick N, Emanski E, Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. Med Clin N Am. 2014;98:777-889.
  • 10. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J. 2010;10: 514–529.
  • 11. Bagraith KS, Strong J, Meredith JP, et al. Rasch analysis supported the construct validity of self-report measures of activity and participation derived from patient ratings of the ICF low back pain core set. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:161-172
  • 12. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179-193.
  • 13. Lewis DM. WHO definition of health remains fit for purpose. BMJ. 2011;343:d5357. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5357.
  • 14. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f167.
  • 15. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine. 2000;25:2095-2102
  • 16. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1928-1936
  • 17. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, et al. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31:1192-1198.
  • 18. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975;1:379-384.
  • 19. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141-144.
  • 20. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:2738-2743.
  • 21. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940-2952
  • 22. Yakut E, Düger T, Oksüz C, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:581-585.
  • 23. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130-3139.
  • 24. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, et al. Kısa Form-36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12:102-106.
  • 25. 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.
  • 26. Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18:34-35.
  • 27. Barlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Brıt J Math Stat Psy. 1950;3:77-85.
  • 28. Gaskin CJ, Happell B. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:511-521.
  • 29. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, et al. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türk Klin Tıp Bilim. 2013;33:210-223.
  • 30. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, et al. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:730-735.
  • 31. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005:19;231- 240.
  • 32. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica. 1951;16: 287–334.
  • 33. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42.

Turkish version of the Back Pain Functional Scale: validity and reliability study

Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, 82 - 89, 01.08.2017

Öz

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability of the Functional Back Pain Scale (FBAS) in patients with back pain.

Methods: One-hundred and twenty subjects were included in the study, who were able to read and write Turkish, who were diagnosed as non-specific back pain and were between 18 and 79 years of age. FBAS, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDA), Oswestry Disability Index (OOI) and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-36) were performed to all patients. Test retest reliability and internal consistency analyzes were conducted for reliability. The construct validity was examined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis while the criterion validity of FBAS was examined by correlation analysis between RMDA, OOI and SF-36 sub-group of physical function.

Results: Test-retest correlation coefficient was r=0.87; p<0.01, Cronbach’s alpha 0.899, and total item correlation coefficients were between 0.484 and 0.710. In explanatory factor analysis, the scale was found to be a one-factor structure and explained 48.172% of the variance. The one-factor model of the scale was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. FBAS showed moderate correlation with RMDA (r=-0.693, p<0.001), OÖI (r=-0.794, p<0.001) and physical function subgroup of SF-36 (r=0.607, p<0.001).

Conclusion: The Turkish version of FBAS is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used tomeasure loss of function in patients with back pain. 

Kaynakça

  • 1. Krismer M, van Tulder M. Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:77-91.
  • 2. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publ. 2015;doi:10.1590/S0034- 8910.2015049005874.
  • 3. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:2028-37.
  • 4. Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people's lives. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2014;doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-50.
  • 5. Pinheiro MB, Ferreira ML, Refshauge K, et al. Symptoms of depression as a prognostic factor for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2016;16:105-116.
  • 6. Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine. 2000;25:1148-1156.
  • 7. Moore JE. Chronic low back pain and psychosocial issues. Phys Med Rehabil Cli. 2010;21:801-815.
  • 8. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23:2003-2013.
  • 9. Patrick N, Emanski E, Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. Med Clin N Am. 2014;98:777-889.
  • 10. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J. 2010;10: 514–529.
  • 11. Bagraith KS, Strong J, Meredith JP, et al. Rasch analysis supported the construct validity of self-report measures of activity and participation derived from patient ratings of the ICF low back pain core set. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:161-172
  • 12. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179-193.
  • 13. Lewis DM. WHO definition of health remains fit for purpose. BMJ. 2011;343:d5357. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5357.
  • 14. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f167.
  • 15. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine. 2000;25:2095-2102
  • 16. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1928-1936
  • 17. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, et al. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31:1192-1198.
  • 18. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975;1:379-384.
  • 19. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141-144.
  • 20. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:2738-2743.
  • 21. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940-2952
  • 22. Yakut E, Düger T, Oksüz C, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:581-585.
  • 23. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130-3139.
  • 24. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, et al. Kısa Form-36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12:102-106.
  • 25. 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.
  • 26. Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18:34-35.
  • 27. Barlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Brıt J Math Stat Psy. 1950;3:77-85.
  • 28. Gaskin CJ, Happell B. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:511-521.
  • 29. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, et al. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türk Klin Tıp Bilim. 2013;33:210-223.
  • 30. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, et al. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:730-735.
  • 31. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005:19;231- 240.
  • 32. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica. 1951;16: 287–334.
  • 33. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Meltem KOÇ Bu kişi benim (Sorumlu Yazar)

0000-0001-6456-8779


Kılıçhan BAYAR Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ağustos 2017
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 2

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { jetr504370, journal = {Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation}, eissn = {2148-8819}, address = {info@jetr.org.tr}, publisher = {Yavuz YAKUT}, year = {2017}, volume = {4}, number = {2}, pages = {82 - 89}, title = {Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması}, key = {cite}, author = {Koç, Meltem and Bayar, Kılıçhan} }
APA Koç, M. & Bayar, K. (2017). Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması . Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation , 4 (2) , 82-89 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jetr/issue/41778/504370
MLA Koç, M. , Bayar, K. "Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması" . Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation 4 (2017 ): 82-89 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jetr/issue/41778/504370>
Chicago Koç, M. , Bayar, K. "Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması". Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation 4 (2017 ): 82-89
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması AU - MeltemKoç, KılıçhanBayar Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - DO - T2 - Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 82 EP - 89 VL - 4 IS - 2 SN - -2148-8819 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2023 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması %A Meltem Koç , Kılıçhan Bayar %T Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması %D 2017 %J Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation %P -2148-8819 %V 4 %N 2 %R %U
ISNAD Koç, Meltem , Bayar, Kılıçhan . "Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması". Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation 4 / 2 (Ağustos 2017): 82-89 .
AMA Koç M. , Bayar K. Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2017; 4(2): 82-89.
Vancouver Koç M. , Bayar K. Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2017; 4(2): 82-89.
IEEE M. Koç ve K. Bayar , "Fonksiyonel Bel Ağrısı Skalası’nın Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması", Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation, c. 4, sayı. 2, ss. 82-89, Ağu. 2017