Low back activity confidence scale: Cross-cultural adaptation,reliability,and validity of the Turkish version in individuals with non-specific low back pain
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2025
Low back activity confidence scale: Cross-cultural adaptation,reliability,and validity of the Turkish version in individuals with non-specific low back pain
The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) was developed to evaluate self-efficacy in individuals with low back pain (LBP).
Objective
This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of Turkish version of LoBACS in individuals with non-specific LBP.
Methods
The study included 105 participants (66 female, 39 male) with a mean age of 40.94 ± 14.65 years. The cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of LoBACS followed international standards and COSMIN guidelines. Reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's α and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Structural validity was tested with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Pearson correlation analysis examined the relationships between LoBACS and the Waddell Disability Index (WDI), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Results
The Turkish version of LoBACS showed high reliability (ICC = 0.850, Cronbach's α = 0.919). CFA and fit indices supported its validity. Correlations between LoBACS and other measures ranged from −0.192 to 0.542. No floor or ceiling effects were noted.
Conclusion
The Turkish version of LoBACS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing self-efficacy in individuals with non-specific LBP, suitable for both research and clinical settings.
VosTBarberRMBellB, et al.Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet2015; 386: 743–800.
2.
WuAMarchLZhengX, et al.Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 99.
3.
EsenESToprakD. Evaluation of the prevalence and associated factors of low back pain. Ankara Med J2018; 4: 460–469.
4.
KongstedAKentPAxenI, et al.What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain?BMC Musculoskelet Disord2016; 17: 1–11.
5.
HashmiJABalikiMNHuangL, et al.Shape shifting pain: chronification of back pain shifts brain representation from nociceptive to emotional circuits. Brain2013; 136: 2751–2768.
6.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev1977; 84: 191–215.
7.
RileySPBialoskyJCoronadoRA. Are changes in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-efficacy mediators of function and pain at discharge in patients with acute and chronic low back pain?J Orthop Sport Phys Ther2020; 50: 301–308.
8.
FerrariSVantiCPellizzerM, et al.Is there a relationship between self-efficacy, disability, pain and sociodemographic characteristics in chronic low back pain? A multicenter retrospective analysis. Arch Physiother2019; 9: 1–9.
9.
de Moraes VieiraÉBde Góes SalvettiMDamianiLP,et al.Self-efficacy and fear avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain patients: coexistence and associated factors. Pain Manag Nurs2014; 15: 593–602.
10.
Salvetti M deGPimenta CA deMBragaPE,et al.Disability related to chronic low back pain: prevalence and associated factors. Rev da Esc Enferm da USP2012; 46: 16–23.
11.
DiasJMSilvaMFDela BelaLF, et al.Assessment of measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the low back activity confidence scale (LoBACS) in patients with chronic low back pain. PLoS One2020; 15: e0239332.
12.
AkinSCanGDurnaZ,et al.Preliminary testing of a Turkish version of the Strategies Used by Patients to Promote Health (SUPPH) scale in a sample of breast cancer patients. J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn2009; 1: 303–310.
13.
SayılanAABacaksızFEAkES, et al.Adaptation of the pain management self-efficacy questionnaire into Turkish. Ağrı2022; 34: 91–99.
14.
SecginliS. Mammography self-efficacy scale and breast cancer fear scale: psychometric testing of the Turkish versions. Cancer Nurs2012; 35: 365–373.
15.
İncirkuşKNahcivanN. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale. Turkish J Med Sci2020; 50: 1254–1261.
16.
ErciB. Reliability and validity of the turkish version of generalized perceived self-efficacy scale. J Anatolia Nurs Heal Sci2010; 9: 57–62.
17.
ErolEYildizAYildizR, et al.Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Fremantle back awareness questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2019; 44: E549–E554.
18.
YamadaKALewthwaiteRPopovichJM,et al.The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS): preliminary validity and reliability. Phys Ther2011; 91: 1592–1603.
19.
CitakerSArikanHMarasG, et al.Translation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment For Gluteal Tendinopathy (VISA-G) questionnaire in individuals with greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Physiother Theory Pract2022; 40: 617–624.
20.
ArikanHCitakerSUcokC. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI/T) for individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Disabil Rehabil2023; 45: 523–533.
21.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminF,et al.Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2000; 25: 3186–3191.
22.
WaddellGMainCJ. Assessment of severity of low back disorders. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica1987; 53: 269–271.
23.
FairbankJCTPynsentPB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2000; 25: 2940–2953.
24.
YakutEDügerTÖksüzÇ, 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.
25.
RolandMMorrisR. A study of the natural history of back pain: part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1983; 8: 141–144.
26.
KüçükdeveciAATennantAElhanAH,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.
27.
CraigCLMarshallALSjöströmM, et al.International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc2003; 35: 1381–1395.
28.
SaglamMArikanHSavciS, et al.International physical activity questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Turkish version. Percept Mot Skills2010; 111: 278–284.
29.
Ware JohnEJGandekB. The SF-36 health survey: development and use in mental health research and the IQOLA project. Int J Ment Health1994; 23: 49–73.
30.
PinarR. Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res2005; 14: 259–264.
31.
WaddellGNewtonMHendersonI, et al.A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain1993; 52: 157–168.
32.
Özcan BingülÖBaş AslanU. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire. Fizyoter Rehabil2013; 24: 135–143.
33.
ChapmanCRCaseyKLDubnerR, et al.Pain measurement: an overview. Pain1985; 22: 1–31.
34.
ArazA. Visual analog scale and affect grid: an application to Turkish culture. Türk Psikol Yazıları2011; 14: 1–13.
35.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBKnolDL, et al.The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol2010; 10: 1–8.
36.
TerweeCBBotSDMde BoerMR, et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60: 34–42.
37.
AndresenEM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: S15–S20.
38.
PortneyLG. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 2020.
39.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016; 15: 155–163.
40.
FeiseRJMenkeJM. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2001; 26: 78–87.
41.
Yiğit ÖzüdoğruHDemiralpN. Developing a geographic inquiry process skills scale. Educ Inq2022; 13: 374–394.
42.
KayaSUzdilZÇakıroğluFP. Validation of the Turkish version of the Orthorexia Nervosa Inventory (ONI) in an adult population: its association with psychometric properties. Eat Weight Disord2022; 27: 729–735.
43.
DavenportTEClelandJAYamadaKA,et al.Measurement properties of the low back activity confidence scale (LoBACS). Eval Health Prof2016; 39: 204–214.
