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
[31]   Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-Short Form for Chronic Low Back Pain [J].
Yoshimoto, Takahiko ;
Yamada, Keiko ;
Fujii, Tomoko ;
Kawamata, Kayo ;
Kasahara, Satoshi ;
Oka, Hiroyuki ;
Matsudaira, Ko .
PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2022, 25 (04) :E681-E688
[32]   Construct validity and reliability of the 2-Minute Step Test (2MST) in individuals with low back pain [J].
de Jesus, Sulamizia Filomena Costa ;
Bassi-Dibai, Daniela ;
Pontes-Silva, Andre ;
de Araujo, Aliny da Silva ;
Silva, Silvana de Freitas Faria ;
Veneroso, Christiano Eduardo ;
Gomes, Cid Andre Fidelis de Paula ;
Dibai-Filho, Almir Vieira .
BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2022, 23 (01)
[33]   Disability is associated with catastrophizing and not with pain intensity in patients with low back pain: A retrospective study [J].
Pierobon, Andres ;
Raguzzi, Ignacio ;
Solino, Santiago ;
Salzberg, Sandra ;
Pierobon, Gabriel ;
Vuoto, Tomas ;
Vera Amor, Juan Sebastian ;
Snaider, Camila ;
Castro, Lucia .
PHYSIOTHERAPY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 25 (04)
[34]   World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain [J].
Chinonso Nwamaka Igwesi-Chidobe ;
Sheila Kitchen ;
Isaac Olubunmi Sorinola ;
Emma Louise Godfrey .
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 21
[35]   CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY OF PRACTICAL QUESTIONNAIRES FOR ASSESSING DISABILITY OF LOW-BACK-PAIN [J].
MILLARD, RW ;
JONES, RH .
SPINE, 1991, 16 (07) :835-838
[36]   Structural validity of the Japanese Orthopedic Association back pain evaluation questionnaire in individuals with chronic low back pain [J].
Pinheiro, Jocassia Silva ;
Pontes-Silva, Andre ;
Costa Araujo, Gabriel Gardhel ;
Mendes, Leticia Padilha ;
Pires, Flavio de Oliveira ;
Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes, Cid Andre ;
Dibai-Filho, Almir Vieira .
REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA, 2021, 67 (08) :1087-1092
[37]   The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire [J].
Denteneer, Lenie ;
Van Daele, Ulrike ;
Truijen, Steven ;
De Hertogh, Willem ;
Meirte, Jill ;
Deckers, Kristiaan ;
Stassijns, Gaetane .
SPINE, 2018, 43 (05) :E292-E298
[38]   Reliability and validity of the Depression and Somatic Symptoms Scale among patients with chronic low back pain [J].
Liu, Chun-Hao ;
Fu, Tsai-Sheng ;
Lee, Chin-Pang ;
Hung, Ching-, I .
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT, 2019, 15 :241-246
[39]   Psychological and physical factors related to disability in chronic low back pain [J].
La Touche, Roy ;
Perez-Fernandez, Marcos ;
Barrera-Marchessi, Ignacio ;
Lopez-de-Uralde-Villanueva, Ibai ;
Hugo Villafane, Jorge ;
Prieto-Aldana, Maria ;
Suso-Marti, Luis ;
Paris-Alemany, Alba .
JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2019, 32 (04) :603-611
[40]   Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the CDC HRQOL-4 scale in patients with chronic low back pain [J].
Asian, Ummuhan Bas ;
Cavlak, Ugur ;
Yagci, Nesrin ;
Baskan, Emre .
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2010, 26 (04) :875-879