Among all musculoskeletal disorders back pain is the most common reason for functional limitation in working age. It is due to low back pain (LBP) that the ODI has become one of the principal outcome measures for evaluation of disability and has been widely used in research as well as in clinical practice. So far, validated Gujarati version of the ODI 2.1a has not been reported.
OBJECTIVE:
To accomplish the translation and validation of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.1a into the Gujarati language.
STUDY DESIGN:
Cross-sectional study.
METHODS:
The validation of the ODI-Gujarati was tested in 120 patients diagnosed with non-specific LBP, who were receiving physiotherapy at a clinic in Gujarat, India. Data was collected at on initial visit and after 48 hours. During both visits, patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index-Gujarati (ODI-G), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire-Gujarati (RMDQ-G), and Visual Analogue Scale-Pain (VAS-P).
RESULTS:
Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s alpha. The Gujarati version indicated high internal consistency ( 0.96). Test-retest reliability was measured by intra-class correlation coefficient and it revealed very high correlation (ICC 0.92). Construct validity was confirmed by strong correlation with RMDQ-G ( 0.76), and concurrent validity indicated moderate correlation with VAS-P ( 0.50). Factor analysis explained that the ODI was loaded on 1 factor.
CONCLUSION:
The Oswestry disability index version 2.1a was successfully translated into Gujarati language, showing excellent psychometric properties. Therefore, it can be used in evaluating the disability amongst Gujarati population with LBP for both clinical and research purposes.
SinhaKNijhawanMAGroverM. Hindi translation and psychometric evaluation of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Version 2.1a. Int J Physiother Res. 2014; 2(6): 743-750.
2.
VincentJIMacdermidJCGrewalRSekarVPBalachandranD. Translation of oswestry disability index into tamil with cross cultural adaptation and evaluation of reliability and validity. Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2014; 8: 11-19.
3.
PekkanenLKautiainenHYlinenJSaloPHakkinenA. Reliability and validity study of the finnish version 2.0 of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2011; 36: 332-338.
4.
AlgarniASGhorbelSJonesJGGuermaziM. Validation of an Arabic version of the Oswestry Index in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2014; 57: 653-663.
5.
MonticoneMBaiardiPFerrariSFotiCMugnaiRPillastriniPVantiCZanoliG. Development of the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I): A cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity study. Spine. 2009; 34: 2090-2095.
6.
PayaresKLugoLHMoralesVLondonoA. Validation in Colombia of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2011; 36: 1730-1735.
7.
Van DijkenCBFjellman-WiklundAHildingssonC. Low back pain lifestyle factors and physical activity: A population-based study. J Rehabil Med. 2008; 40: 864-869.
8.
SheahanPJNelson-WongEJFisherSL. A review of culturally adapted versions of the Oswestry Disability Index: The Adaptation process, construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2015; 37: 2367-74.
9.
VianinM. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2008; 7: 161-163.
10.
VigattoRAlexandreNMCFilhoHRC. Development of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Spine. 2007; 32: 481-486.
11.
MannionAFJungeAGrobD. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index, Part 2: Sensitivity to change after Spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 66-73.
12.
JoshiVDRaiturkerPPKulkarniAA. Validity and reliability of English and Marathi Oswestry Disability Index (version 2.1a) in Indian population. Spine. 2013; 38: 662-8.
13.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminFFerrazMB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000; 25: 3186-91.
14.
GuilleminF. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995; 24: 61-3.
15.
FairbankJCCouperJDaviesJBBrienJP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66: 271-3.
16.
FairbankJCPynsentPB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000; 25: 2940-2952.
17.
LauridsenHHHartvigsenJMannicheCKorsholmLNilssonNG. Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with Low back pain, Part1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 1705-1716.
18.
SakulsriprasertPVachalathitiRVongsirinavaratMKantasornJ. Cross-cultural adaptation of modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire to Thai and its reliability. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006; 89: 1694-701.
19.
KimDYLeeSHLeeHYLeeHJChangSBChungSKKImHJ. Validation of the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2005; 30: 123-127.
20.
BoscainosPJSapkasGStilianessiEProuskasKPapadakisSA. Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Qu stionnaires. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2003; 411: 40-53.
21.
GrotleMBroxJIVollestadNK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the roland-morris disability questionnaire and the oswestry disability index. J Rehabil Med. 2003; 35: 241-247.
22.
ValasekTVargaPPSzoverfiZKuminMFairbankJLazaryA. Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: 1010-1018.
23.
ChhabraHSKapoorKS. New modified English and Hindi Oswestry Disability Index in low back pain patients treated conservatively in Indian population. Asian Spine J. 2014; 8: 632-638.
24.
RolandMMorrisM. 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. 1983; 8: 141-4.
25.
NambiSG. Reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of Guajarati version of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2012; 1-4.
26.
WaddellG. Volvo award in clinical sciences: A new clinical model for the treatment of low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987; 12(7): 632-44.
27.
KopecJAEsdaileJMAbrahamowiczMAbenhaimLWood-DauphineeSLampingDLWilliamsJI. The quebec back pain disability scale: Conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49(2): 151-161.
28.
WareJE, Jr.SherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992; 30: 473-483.
29.
CostelloABOsborneJW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. 2005; 10.
30.
BoonstraAMPreuperSHRRenemanMFPosthumusJBStewartRE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008; 31(2): 165-9.
31.
AcharyaRSAl-OraibiSAdhikariSPPaeajuliNLimbuHEneziF. Validation in the cross-cultural adaptation of the nepali version of the oswestry disability index. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy. 2014; 8: 158-163.
32.
DenisIFortinL. Development of a French-Canadian version of the Oswestry Disability Index: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Eur Spine J. 2012; 37: 439-444.
33.
LueYJHsiehCLHuangMHLuYM. Development of a Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index Version 2.1. Spine. 2008; 33: 2354-60.
34.
MousaviSJParnianpourMMehdianHMontazeriAMobiniB. The oswestry disability index, the roland-morris disability questionnaire, and the quebec back pain disability scale: Translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine. 2006; 31: 454-9.
35.
YakutEDugerTOksusCYorukanSUretenKTuranDFratTKirazSKrdNKayhanHYakutYGulerC. Validation of the Turkish version of Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004; 29: 581-85.
36.
Santos-EggimannBWietlisbachVRickenbachMPaccaudFGutzwillerF. One year prevalence of low back pain in two swiss regions: Estimates from the population participating in the 1992–1993 MONICA projects. Spine. 2000; 25: 2473-9.
37.
WalshTLHanscomBLurieJDWeinsteinJN. Is a condition specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the oswestry disability index, MODEMS and the SF-36. Spine. 2003; 28: 607-615.
38.
SampatMPWhitmanJStephensTWBroemelingLDHegerNABovikACMarkeyMK. The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of speculated masses on mammography. The British Journal of Radiology. 2006; 134-140.
39.
DeyoRADiehrPPatrickDL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures, statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991; 12: 142-58.
