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
  • [21] World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain
    Igwesi-Chidobe, Chinonso Nwamaka
    Kitchen, Sheila
    Sorinola, Isaac Olubunmi
    Godfrey, Emma Louise
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [22] The Italian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain
    Monticone, Marco
    Frigau, Luca
    Mola, Francesco
    Rocca, Barbara
    Franchignoni, Franco
    Vullo, Salvatore Simone
    Foti, Calogero
    Chiarotto, Alessandro
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 29 (03) : 530 - 539
  • [23] Convergent and known group validity of the STarT Back Tool in a Nigerian population with chronic low back pain
    Mbada, Chidozie Emmanuel
    Ojo, Joshua Oluwafunmibi
    Idowu, Opeyemi Ayodiipo
    Afolabi, Taofik Oluwasegun
    Afolabi, Aanuoluwapo Deborah
    Oke, Kayode Israel
    Sonuga, Oluwatobi Ademola
    Karstens, Sven
    Fatoye, Francis
    PHYSIOSCIENCE, 2021, 17 (02) : 75 - 81
  • [24] Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the 36-Item WHODAS 2.0 in Patients with Low Back Pain
    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
  • [25] ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CATASTROPHIZING AND SELF-RATED PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
    Meyer, Kathrin
    Tschopp, Alois
    Sprott, Haiko
    Mannion, Anne Frances
    JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2009, 41 (08) : 620 - 625
  • [26] Evaluation of the correlation between the Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index, Back Pain Functional Scale and other back pain disability scales in Turkish patients with low back pain
    Karadag, Ahmet
    Canbas, Muhammed
    JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2022, 35 (04) : 771 - 775
  • [27] The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS): Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version for Chronic Low Back Pain and Knee Pain
    Nagasawa, Yasuhiro
    Shibata, Ai
    Fukamachi, Hanako
    Ishii, Kaori
    Wicksell, Rikard K.
    Oka, Koichiro
    JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH, 2021, 14 : 325 - 332
  • [28] Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain
    Mikkonen, Jani
    Leinonen, Ville
    Laehdeoja, Tuomas
    Holopainen, Riikka
    Ekstroem, Kristian
    Koho, Petteri
    Airaksinen, Olavi
    Luciano, Juan V.
    Navarrete, Jaime
    Neblett, Randy
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [29] Correlation between Oswestry disability index and 12-item self-administered version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in patients with chronic low back pain
    Barlund, Esa T.
    Katajapuu, Niina K.
    Paltamaa, Jaana P.
    Saltychev, Mikhail M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH, 2021, 44 (02) : 170 - 172
  • [30] Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain
    Jessica J. Wong
    Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
    Wouter De Groote
    Agnieszka Ćwirlej-Sozańska
    Olatz Garin
    Montse Ferrer
    Àngels Pont Acuña
    Pierre Côté
    Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 31