Profit Bel Haritası Anketi Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik güvenirlik ve kültürler arası uyarlaması

Yıl 2022, Cilt 9, Sayı 3, 214 - 221, 19.12.2022

Nezire KÖSE Hatice ÇETİN Ceyhun TÜRKMEN Esra DÜLGER Haluk TEKERLEK Sevil BİLGİN

https://doi.org/10.15437/jetr.1007600

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Profit Bel Haritası Anketi'nin (PBHA) Türkçe versiyonunun bel ağrılı bireylere uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliğinin araştırılmasıdır. Yöntem: Çalışmaya kronik bel ağrısı olan 240 kişi alındı. Anketin güvenirlik değerlendirmesi için değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirlik ve iç tutarlılık analizleri kullanıldı. Değerlendiriciler arası güvenirlik sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (ICC) ile değerlendirildi ve iç tutarlılık için Cronbach alpha değeri hesaplandı. Eşzamanlı geçerlilik için PBHA puanları, Pearson korelasyon katsayısı analizi kullanılarak Oswestry Engellilik İndeksi (OEİ) ve Vizüel Analog Skalası (VAS) ile karşılaştırıldı. Tüm katılımcılara PBHA, OEİ, VAS ve Kısa Form-36 (KF-36) uygulandı. Bulgular: Değerlendiriciler arası güvenirlik için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayı puanları 0,643 ile 0,767 arasında değişmekte olup, puanlayıcı içi sonuçların çok iyi olduğunu göstermektedir. PBHA’nın OEI arasındaki Pearson korelasyon katsayısı 0,594 olarak hesaplanırken VAS ile eşzamanlı geçerliği 0,502 bulundu. Güvenilirlik analizi için PBHA'nın Cronbach alfa değeri 0,837 olarak kaydedildi. PBHA’nın SF-36 endeksleri ile ilişkileri orta ve iyi (0,28-0,52) arasında değişti. Sonuç: PBHA’nın Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilirdir. Bu ölçek, ağrının kronik bel ağrısı olan kişilerin semptomlarını ve fonksiyonel aktivitelerini nasıl ne sıklıkla ve ne kadar etkileyebileceğini ortaya koyabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bel ağrısı, Sonuç ölçümü, Sonuçların tekrarlanabilirliği, Anketler ve ölçekler, : Low back pain, Outcome assessment, Reproducibility of results, Surveys and questionnaires

Validity, reliability and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the Profitmap-Back Questionnaire

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this current study was to investigate adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Turkish version of the Profile-Fitness Mapping Questionnaire (PFMQ) for people with low back pain. Methods: Two hundred and forty participants who had chronic low back pain enrolled to the study. Intra-rater and internal consistency analysis were used for the reliability assessment of the questionnaire. Intra-rater reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for internal consistency. For concurrent validity, PFMQ scores were compared with ODI and VAS using Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis. The PFMQ, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Short Form Health Survey instrument (SF-36) were administered to all participants. Results: For intra-rater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient scores were varying between 0.643 and 0.767, indicating that intra-rater results were very good. Pearson correlation coefficient of the PFMQ with ODI was calculated 0.594 and it was found with VAS was 0.502 for concurrent validity. For the reliability analysis, the Cronbach alpha value of the PFMQ were recorded as 0.837. The correlations with the SF-36 indices were changed between fair and good (0.28–0.52). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the PFMQ is valid and reliable. This scale can reveal how, how often, and how much can pain affect the symptoms and functional activities of people with chronic low back pain.

Anahtar Kelimeler

: Low back pain, Outcome assessment, Reproducibility of results, Surveys and questionnaires

Kaynakça

• 1. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73: 968-74.
• 2. Lee H, Hübscher M, Moseley GL, et al. How does pain lead to disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies in people with back and neck pain. Pain 2015; 156: 988-97.
• 3. Patrick N, Emanski E and Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. Med Clin North Am. 2014; 98: 777-89.
• 4. Fritz JM and Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 776-88.
• 5. Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66: 271-3.
• 6. Roland M and Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3115-3124.
• 7. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20: 341-352.
• 8. Cetin H, Köse N, Bilgin S, et al. The ProFitMap-neck-a questionnaire for measuring symptoms and functional limitations in neck pain: reliability, validity and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version. Turk J Med Sci. 2020; 50: 937-944.
• 9. Ferreira MC, Björklund M, Dach F, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the profile fitness mapping neck questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese: internal consistency, reliability, and construct and structural validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2017; 40: 176-186.
• 10. Björklund M, Hamberg J, Heiden M, et al. The assessment of symptoms and functional limitations in low back pain patients: validity and reliability of a new questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16: 1799-1811.
• 11. Jelsma J. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a literature survey. J Rehabil Med.2009; 41: 1-12.
• 12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25:3186-3191.
• 13. Tsang S, Royse CF and Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017; 11: S80-S89.
• 14. Yakut E, Düger T, Öksüz Ç, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29: 581-585.
• 15. Stoll TM, Dubois G and Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11: S170-S178.
• 16. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, et al. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011; 63 (Suppl 13):S240-S252.
• 17. Jenkinson C, Coulter A and Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993; 306: 1437-1440.
• 18. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19: 231-240.
• 19. Osburn HG. Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5: 343-355.
• 20. Shrout PE and Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428.
• 21. Björklund M, Hamberg J, Heiden M, et al. The ProFitMap-neck–reliability and validity of a questionnaire for measuring symptoms and functional limitations in neck pain. Disabil Rehabil.2012; 34: 1096-1107.
• 22. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34: E219-E224.
• 23. Sigl T, Cieza A, Brockow T, et al. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Clin J Pain. 2006; 22: 147-153.
• 24. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26: 2738-2743.