Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations

被引:96
作者
Lauridsen, Henrik Hein [1 ]
Hartvigsen, Jan
Manniche, Claus
Korsholm, Lars
Grunnet-Nilsson, Niels
机构
[1] Univ So Denmark, Inst Sports Sci & Clin Biomech, Odense, Denmark
[2] Clin Locomot Sci, Odense, Denmark
[3] Nord Inst Chiropract & Clin Biomech, Odense, Denmark
[4] Backctr Funen, Ringe, Denmark
[5] Univ So Denmark, Dept Stat, Odense, Denmark
关键词
low back pain; disability; Oswestry Disability Index; psychometric testing; Danish version; primary health care; secondary sector;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-006-0117-9
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Over the past 10 years, a plethora of back-specific patient-orientated outcome measures have appeared in the literature. Standardisation has been advocated by an expert panel of researchers proposing a core set of instruments. Of the condition-specific questionnaires the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is recommended for use with low back pain (LBP) patients. To date, no Danish version of the ODI exists which has been cross-culturally adapted, validated and published in the peer-reviewed literature. A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ODI for the Danish language was carried out according to established guidelines: 233 patients [half of the patients were seen in the primary sector (PrS) and half in the secondary sector (SeS) of the Danish health care system] with LBP and/or leg pain completed a questionnaire booklet at baseline, 1 day or 1 week and 8 weeks follow-up. The booklet contained the Danish version of the ODI, along with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, the LBP Rating Scale, the SF36 (physical function and bodily pain scales) and a global pain rating. For the ODI test-retest analysis (93 stable patients) resulted in an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91, a mean difference of 0.8 and 95% limits of agreements of -11.5 to + 13. Thus, a worsening greater than 12 points and improvement greater than 13 points can be considered a "real" change above the measurement error. A substantial floor effect was found in PrS patients (14.1%). The ODI showed satisfactory cross-sectional discriminant validity when compared to the external measures. Concurrent validity of the ODI revealed: (a) a 10% and 21% lower ODI score compared to the disability and pain measures, respectively, (b) a poorer differentiation of patient disabilities and (c) an acceptable individual ODI score level compared to the external measures. Longitudinal external construct validity showed moderate correlations (range 0.56-0.78). We conclude that the Danish version of the ODI is both a valid and reliable outcome instrument in two LBP patient populations. The ODI is probably most appropriate for use in SeS patients.
引用
收藏
页码:1705 / 1716
页数:12
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]  
Albert Hanne B, 2003, Ugeskr Laeger, V165, P1875
[2]  
[Anonymous], MED OUTCOMES TRUST B
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Health measurement scales
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1989, Back Pain. New Approaches To Rehabilitation And Education
[5]   Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Bombardier, C ;
Guillemin, F ;
Ferraz, MB .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (24) :3186-3191
[6]   The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: Translation and preliminary validity studies [J].
Bjorner, JB ;
Thunedborg, K ;
Kristensen, TS ;
Modvig, J ;
Bech, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :991-999
[7]   Differential Item Functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36 [J].
Bjorner, JB ;
Kreiner, S ;
Ware, JE ;
Damsgaard, MT ;
Bech, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1189-1202
[8]   Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36 [J].
Bjorner, JB ;
Damsgaard, MT ;
Watt, T ;
Groenvold, M .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1001-1011
[9]  
Bjorner JB, 1997, DANISH MANUAL SF36
[10]   Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies [J].
Bland, JM ;
Altman, DG .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 22 (01) :85-93