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 50 条
[1]   Reliability and construct validity of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire in the elderly with low back pain [J].
Bayar, K ;
Bayar, B ;
Yakut, E ;
Yakut, Y .
PAIN CLINIC, 2003, 15 (01) :55-59
[2]   Assessment of pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: Reliability and construct validity of the Turkish version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Pain Disability Index [J].
Bicer, A ;
Yazici, A ;
Camdeviren, H ;
Milcan, A ;
Erdogan, C .
JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2005, 18 (1-2) :37-44
[3]   CULTURAL ADAPTATION, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE PAIN DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE IN CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN [J].
Yaran, Mahmut ;
Ekici, Gamze .
TURKISH JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY REHABILITATION-TURK FIZYOTERAPI VE REHABILITASYON DERGISI, 2020, 31 (02) :141-147
[4]   Chronic low back pain: pain intensity, disability and quality of life [J].
Stefane, Thais ;
dos Santos, Amanda Munari ;
Marinovic, Adriano ;
Hortense, Priscilla .
ACTA PAULISTA DE ENFERMAGEM, 2013, 26 (01) :14-20
[5]   The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the graded chronic pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain [J].
Ozden, Fatih ;
Ozkeskin, Mehmet ;
Bakirhan, Serkan ;
Karaman, Ozgur Nadiye ;
Aydogmus, Huseyin .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 30 (10) :2955-2961
[6]   An Assessment of the Longitudinal Construct Validity of the Pain Behavioral Scale (PaBS) in a Saudi Population with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study [J].
Alimam, Dalia ;
Alhowimel, Ahmed ;
Alodaibi, Faris ;
Alotaibi, Mazyad ;
Alzahrani, Hosam ;
Almutairi, Nouf ;
Alqahtani, Ali ;
Alhumaid, Lolwah Alrashed ;
Leaver, Andrew ;
Mackey, Martin .
HEALTHCARE, 2023, 11 (12)
[7]   Reliability and validity of the Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index in lumbosacral radiculopathy [J].
Sencan, Savas ;
Erdem, Didem ;
Gunduz, Osman Hakan ;
Bilim, Serhad ;
Duruoz, Mehmet Tuncay .
JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2021, 34 (05) :813-820
[8]   Reliability and Validity of the Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale in Persian Speaking Chronic Low Back Pain Patients [J].
Shanbehzadeh, Sanaz ;
Salavati, Mahyar ;
Tavahomi, Mahnaz ;
Khatibi, Ali ;
Talebian, Saeed ;
Khademi-Kalantari, Khosro .
SPINE, 2017, 42 (21) :E1238-E1244
[9]   Reliability and Validity of a New Objective Tool for Low Back Pain Functional Assessment [J].
Sanchez-Zuriaga, Daniel ;
Lopez-Pascual, Juan ;
Garrido-Jaen, David ;
Francisca Peydro de Moya, Maria ;
Prat-Pastor, Jaime .
SPINE, 2011, 36 (16) :1279-1288
[10]   Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS): An Exploratory Study of Reliability and Construct Validity in a Chronic Low Back Pain Population [J].
Alamam, Dalyah M. ;
Leaver, Andrew ;
Moloney, Niamh ;
Alsobayel, Hana, I ;
Alashaikh, Ghada ;
Mackey, Martin G. .
PAIN RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT, 2019, 2019