Is it time to rethink disability assessment in low back pain? Reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 for chronic low back pain

被引:1
作者
Castro e Silva, Tuyra Francisca [1 ,2 ]
Medeiros, Paula Maciel de Sousa Silva [3 ]
Leite, Camila Ferreira [1 ]
Castro, Shamyr Sulyvan [1 ,4 ]
Nunes, Ana Carla Lima [1 ]
Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Ceara, Master Program Physiotherapy & Functioning, Fortaleza, Brazil
[2] Fed Inst Educ Sci & Technol Ceara, Fortaleza, Brazil
[3] Univ Fortaleza UNIFOR, Washington Soares Ave, Fortaleza, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Ceara, Master Program Publ Hlth, Fortaleza, Brazil
关键词
functioning; low back pain; patient-reported outcome measures; validation; FEAR-AVOIDANCE BELIEFS; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES; ROLAND-MORRIS; HEALTH-STATUS; QUESTIONNAIRE; CLASSIFICATION; POPULATION; ADAPTATION; VALIDATION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1002/pri.2025
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: The World Health Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was developed to assess health and disability based on the biopsychosocial model. The WHODAS 2.0 has not been validated for Brazilians with chronic non- specific low back pain (LBP). We aimed to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 in patients with chronic LBP. Methods: Methodological study. The Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 was applied to 100 volunteers with chronic nonspecific LBP. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were assessed using the Spearman correlation test, Cronbach's alpha (a) coefficient, and Spearman's correlation test between WHODAS 2.0, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), respectively. Results: WHODAS 2.0 showed satisfactory test-retest reliability with a moderate correlation for total WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.75, p < 0.05). Internal consistency was adequate for all domains and total score (a = 0.82-0.96). Regarding construct validity, WHODAS 2.0, ODI (r = 0.70, p < 0.05), and WHODAS 2.0 and RMDQ (r = 0.71, p < 0.05) had significant correlations. Total WHODAS 2.0 and FABQ-Phys subscale scores correlated moderately (r = 0.66, p < 0.05). Discussion: The Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 was proved to be a valid and reliable tool for patients with chronic LBP. The item referring to sexual intercourse had 27% and 30% of the missing values during the test and retest stage, respectively and had a high percentage of missing data for work- related questions (41% missing data) in the life activities domain; therefore, the data must be interpreted with caution. Implications for Physiotherapy Practice: WHODAS 2.0 can be used as a disability assessment strategy from a biopsychosocial perspective in this population.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   User's guide to correlation coefficients [J].
Akoglu, Haldun .
TURKISH JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2018, 18 (03) :91-93
[2]   Non-specific low back pain [J].
Balague, Federico ;
Mannion, Anne F. ;
Pellise, Ferran ;
Cedraschi, Christine .
LANCET, 2012, 379 (9814) :482-491
[3]   Low back pain should be considered a health and research priority in Brazil: Lost productivity and healthcare costs between 2012 to 2016 [J].
Carregaro, Rodrigo Luiz ;
Tottoli, Caroline Ribeiro ;
Rodrigues, Daniela da Silva ;
Bosmans, Judith E. ;
da Silva, Everton Nunes ;
van Tulder, Maurits .
PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (04)
[4]   Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain [J].
Chiarotto, Alessandro ;
Boers, Maarten ;
Deyo, Richard A. ;
Buchbinder, Rachelle ;
Corbin, Terry P. ;
Costa, Leonardo O. P. ;
Foster, Nadine E. ;
Grotle, Margreth ;
Koes, Bart W. ;
Kovacs, Francisco M. ;
Lin, C-W. Christine ;
Maher, Chris G. ;
Pearson, Adam M. ;
Peul, Wilco C. ;
Schoene, Mark L. ;
Turk, Dennis C. ;
van Tulder, Maurits W. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. .
PAIN, 2018, 159 (03) :481-495
[5]   Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. and Oswestry Disability Index: Which Has Better Measurement Properties for Measuring Physical Functioning in Nonspecific Low Back Pain? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Chiarotto, Alessandro ;
Maxwell, Lara J. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Wells, George A. ;
Tugwell, Peter ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2016, 96 (10) :1620-1637
[6]   Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in adults with spinal cord injury in Taiwan: a psychometric study [J].
Chiu, Tzu-Ying ;
Finger, Monika E. ;
Fellinghauer, Carolina S. ;
Escorpizo, Reuben ;
Chi, Wen-Chou ;
Liou, Tsan-Hon ;
Yen, Chia-Feng .
SPINAL CORD, 2019, 57 (06) :516-524
[7]   Icf linking rules:: An update based on lessons learned [J].
Cieza, A ;
Geyh, S ;
Chatterji, S ;
Kostanjsek, N ;
Üstün, B ;
Stucki, G .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2005, 37 (04) :212-218
[8]   Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 [J].
Cieza, Alarcos ;
Causey, Kate ;
Kamenov, Kaloyan ;
Hanson, Sarah Wulf ;
Chatterji, Somnath ;
Vos, Theo .
LANCET, 2020, 396 (10267) :2006-2017
[9]   Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the 36-Item WHODAS 2.0 in Patients with Low Back Pain [J].
Cwirlej-Sozanska, Agnieszka ;
Bejer, Agnieszka ;
Wisniowska-Szurlej, Agnieszka ;
Wilmowska-Pietruszynska, Anna ;
de Sire, Alessandro ;
Spalek, Renata ;
Sozanski, Bernard .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 17 (19) :1-17
[10]   The Brazilian version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire [J].
de Abreu, Ana Maria ;
Coelho de Morais Faria, Christina Danielli ;
Vicente Cardoso, Sonia Maria ;
Teixeira-Salmela, Luci Fuscaldi .
CADERNOS DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2008, 24 (03) :615-623