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
[41]   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
[42]   Chronic low back pain and disability in Brazilian jiu-jitsu athletes [J].
Reis, Felipe J. J. ;
Dias, Mariana D. ;
Newlands, Flavia ;
Meziat-Filho, Ney ;
Macedo, Adriana R. .
PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT, 2015, 16 (04) :340-343
[43]   Validity, reliability, and factor structure of the Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index in axial spondyloarthritis [J].
Duruoz, Mehmet Tuncay ;
Acer Kasman, Sevtap ;
Sahin, Nilay ;
Sezer, Ilhan ;
Bodur, Hatice ;
Ketenci, Aysegul ;
Hizmetli, Sami ;
Erdem Gursoy, Didem ;
Demir, Ali Nail ;
Menekseoglu, Ahmet Kivanc ;
Karadag, Ahmet ;
Baklacioglu, Hatice Sule .
MODERN RHEUMATOLOGY, 2021, 31 (02) :451-457
[44]   The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the graded chronic pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain [J].
Fatih Özden ;
Mehmet Özkeskin ;
Serkan Bakırhan ;
Özgür Nadiye Karaman ;
Hüseyin Aydoğmuş .
European Spine Journal, 2021, 30 :2955-2961
[45]   Evaluation of patients with chronic low back pain: intensity of pain, disability and depression [J].
Stefane, T. ;
Munari, A. ;
Ito D., Yuji ;
Marinovic, A. ;
Hortense, P. .
15TH WORLD CONGRESS OF PAIN CLINICIANS (WSPC 2012), 2012, :127-130
[46]   Assessment of Low Back Pain: Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Brief Pain Inventory [J].
Song, Chen-Yi ;
Chen, Chia-Hsin ;
Chen, Tien-Wen ;
Chiang, Hsin-Yu ;
Hsieh, Ching-Lin .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, 2022, 76 (03)
[47]   Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain [J].
Cetin, Engin ;
Celik, Evrim Coskun ;
Acaroglu, Emre ;
Berk, Haluk .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 27 (01) :93-100
[48]   Assessment of a Biofeedback Program to Treat Chronic Low Back Pain [J].
da Fonseca Lopes de Sousa, Karina Santaella ;
Orfale, Adriana Garcia ;
Meireles, Sandra Mara ;
Leite, Jose Roberto ;
Natour, Jamil .
JOURNAL OF MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN, 2009, 17 (04) :369-377
[49]   Low back activity confidence scale: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version in individuals with non-specific low back pain [J].
Arikan, Halime ;
Coban, Tugce .
JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2025, 38 (02) :208-219
[50]   The validity and reliability of the functional rating index for evaluating low back pain in athletes [J].
Naghdi, S. ;
Ansari, N. Nakhostin ;
Yazdanpanah, M. ;
Feise, R. J. ;
Fakhari, Z. .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS, 2015, 25 (06) :840-845