Translation and validation of important scales in other languages reduce bias in reporting the functional status of the patient.
OBJECTIVE:
To translate the Back Pain Functional Scale into Urdu (BPFSu), adapt it for use in other cultures, and evaluate its psychometric properties.
METHOD:
According to Beaton guidelines, translation and cultural adaption was carried out. On 100 Urdu-literate men and women aged 18–60 years with lower back pain, the final BPFSu was assessed for psychometric qualities. First at baseline and again after 7 days, participants completed the BPFSu, the Functional Rating Index (FRI), and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).
RESULTS:
Internal consistency of the BPFSu was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.937). No floor and ceiling effects were found Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC 0.882, CI 95%; 0.830–0.919) was achieved. Spearman correlation coefficient showed criterion validity with the NPRS (rho 0.701, 0.001) and Pearson correlation coefficient showed construct validity with the FRI (0.740, 0.001). The minimum detectable changes were 9.96, while the standard error of measurement was 3.6.
CONCLUSION:
The BPFSu is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing physical function in individuals experiencing low back discomfort.
HoyDProtaniMDeRBuchbinderRJBP, rheumatology rc. The epidemiology of neck pain. Best Pact Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010; 24(6): 783-92.
2.
KoesBWVan TulderMThomasSJB. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006; 332(7555): 1430-4.
3.
DeyoRAVon KorffMDuhrkoopD. Opioids for low back pain. BMJ. 2015; 350: g6380.
4.
HingERuiP. Emergency department use in the country’s five most populous states and the total United States, 2012. NCHS Data Brief. 2016; (252): 1-8.
5.
AnderssonGBJTl. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999; 354(9178): 581-5.
6.
DeyoRAAnderssonGBombardierCCherkinDCKellerRBLeeCK, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(Suppl 18): 2032S-2036S.
7.
CalmelsPBéthouxFCondemineAFayolle-MinonI. Low back pain disability assessment tools. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2005; 48(6): 288-297.
8.
KüçükdeveciAATennantAElhanAHNiyazogluHJS. Validation of the Turkish Version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(24): 2738-43.
9.
YakutEDügerTÖksüzÇYörükanSÜretenKTuranD, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(5): 581-5.
10.
StratfordPBinkleyJJJR. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. A comparison study of the Back Pain Functional Scale and Roland-Morris Questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2000; 27(8): 1928-36.
11.
StratfordPWBinkleyJMRiddleDLJS. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(16): 2095-102.
12.
LongoUGLoppiniMDenaroLMaffulliNDenaroVJBmb. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull. 2010; 94(1): 81-144.
13.
SugihartatiRJLP, practice. Information seeking behavior in academic assignments using smartphone among elementary school students. LPP. 2019; 11(19): 1-17.
14.
BeatonDBombardierCGuilleminFFerrazMBJNYAAoOS. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. AAOS. 2002; 12: 1-29.
15.
AllaliGLaunayCPBlumenHMCallisayaMLDe CockA-MKressigRW, et al. Falls, cognitive impairment, and gait performance: results from the GOOD initiative. JAMDA. 2017; 18(4): 335-40.
16.
ChildsJDPivaSRFritzJM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005; 30(11): 1331-1334.
17.
FeiseRJMenkeJMJS. 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(1): 78-87.
18.
LexellJEDownhamDYJAjopm, rehabilitation. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84(9): 719-23.
19.
Nakhostin AnsariNNaghdiSHabibzadehFSalsabiliNEbadiSJPt, practice. Persian translation and validation of the Back Pain Functional Scale. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018; 34(3): 223-30.
20.
CostelloABOsborneJJPa, research, evaluation. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. PARE. 2005; 10(1): 7.
21.
Nakhostin AnsariNAbdollahzadeZNaghdiSBeigmohammadiMTKashi-AlashtiMJBSS, Medicine, Rehabilitation. Cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Persian version of the lumbar spine instability questionnaire. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2022; 14(1): 1-8.
22.
SteigerFWirthBde BruinEDMannionAJESJ. Is a positive clinical outcome after exercise therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain contingent upon a corresponding improvement in the targeted aspect (s) of performance? A systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21: 575-98.
23.
DaudeAKhanWCheD. Urdu language processing: a survey. Artif Intell Rev. 2017; 47: 279-311.
24.
CeranFOzcanAJMsmimjoe, research c. The relationship of the Functional Rating Index with disability, pain, and quality of life in patients with low back pain. Med Sci Monit. 2006; 12(10): CR435-9.
25.
KopecJA. Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain: a review of back-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24): 3110-4.
26.
Al AmerHSAlanaziFELdesokyMHoninA. Cross-cultural adaptation and Psychometric testing of the Arabic version of the modified Oswestry low Back pain disability questionnaire. PLoS One. 2020; 15(4): e0231382.
27.
MohanVPrashanthGMeravanigiGRajagopalanNYerramshettyJ. Adaptation of the Oswestry disability index to Kannada language and Evaluation of its validity and reliability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(11): E674-E80.
28.
MonticoneMBaiardiPFerrariSFotiCMugnaiRPillastriniPVantiCZanoliG. Development of the Italian version of the Oswestry disability index (ODI-I): a cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(19): 2090-5.
29.
GrassiAMarsocciADell’AnnoFCastigliaSFFattoriSMagnificaF. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability study of the italian version of the back pain functional scale. MLTJ. 2023; 13(1): 119-25.
30.
MarasGSheidayiSYaziciGYaziciMVGunaydinGCitakerS. Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Back Pain Functional Scale. Asian Spine J. 2019; 13(4): 569-76.
31.
JiaCQCaoSQWuYJHuFQZhangZZhangXS. Simplified Chinese version of the back pain function scale (BPFS) for patients with low back pain: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022; 47(6): 498-504.
