Skip header and navigation

Refine By

8 records – page 1 of 1.

Reliability and construct validity of self-report questionnaires for patients with pelvic girdle pain.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature130290
Source
Phys Ther. 2012 Jan;92(1):111-23
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2012
Author
Margreth Grotle
Andrew M Garratt
Hanne Krogstad Jenssen
Britt Stuge
Author Affiliation
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. margreth.grotle@medisin.uio.no
Source
Phys Ther. 2012 Jan;92(1):111-23
Date
Jan-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Catastrophization
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation
Fear - psychology
Female
Humans
Norway
Pelvic Pain - diagnosis - physiopathology - psychology
Postpartum Period
Pregnancy
Questionnaires
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Abstract
There is little evidence for the measurement properties of instruments commonly used for women with pelvic girdle pain.
The aim of this study was to examine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of instruments used for women with pelvic girdle pain.
This was a cross-sectional methodology study, including test-retest reliability assessment.
Women with pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy and after delivery participated in a postal survey that included the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Disability Rating Index (DRI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and 8-item version of the Medical
Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). Test-retest reliability was assessed with a random subsample 1 week later. Internal consistency was assessed with the Cronbach alpha, and test-retest reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Construct validity based on hypotheses was assessed by correlation analysis. Discriminant validity was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
All participants responded to the main (N=87) and test-retest (n=42) surveys. Cronbach alpha values ranged from .88 to .94, and ICCs ranged from .78 to .94. The MDC at the individual level constituted about 7% to 14% of total scores for the 8-item version of the SF-36, ODI, and PGQ activity subscale; about 18% to 22% for the DRI, PGQ symptom subscale, and PCS; and about 25% for the FABQ. Hypotheses were mostly confirmed by correlations between the instruments. The PGQ was the only instrument that significantly discriminated participants who were pregnant from participants who were not pregnant as well as pain locations.
A comparison of responsiveness to change of the various instruments used in this study was not undertaken, but will be carried out in a future study.
Self-report instruments for assessing health showed good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity for women with pelvic girdle pain. The PGQ was the only instrument with satisfactory discriminant validity, thus, it is recommended for evaluating symptoms and disability in patients with pelvic girdle pain.
PubMed ID
22016375 View in PubMed
Less detail

Individualized quality of life in patients with low back pain: reliability and validity of the Patient Generated Index.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature258774
Source
J Rehabil Med. 2014 Sep;46(8):781-7
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-2014
Author
Ida Løchting
Margreth Grotle
Kjersti Storheim
Erik L Werner
Andrew M Garratt
Source
J Rehabil Med. 2014 Sep;46(8):781-7
Date
Sep-2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Activities of Daily Living - psychology
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain - physiopathology - psychology
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Sickness Impact Profile
Abstract
To evaluate the reliability and validity of the improved version of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with low back pain.
The PGI was administered to 90 patients attending care in 1 of 6 institutions in Norway and evaluated for reliability and validity. The questionnaire was given out to 61 patients for re-test purposes.
The PGI was completed correctly by 80 (88.9%) patients and, of the 61 patients responding to the re-test, 50 (82.0%) completed both surveys correctly. PGI scores were approximately normally distributed, with a median of 40 (range 80), where 100 is the best possible quality of life. There were no floor or ceiling effects. The 5 most frequently listed areas affecting quality of life were pain, sleep, stiffness, socializing and housework. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.73. The smallest detectable changes for individual and group purposes were 32.8 and 4.6, respectively. The correlations between PGI scores and other instrument scores followed a priori hypotheses of low to moderate correlations.
The PGI has evidence for reliability and validity in Norwegian patients with low back pain at the group level and may be considered for application in intervention studies when a comprehensive evaluation of quality of life is important. However, the smallest detectable change, of approximately 30 points, may be considered too large for individual purposes in clinical applications.
PubMed ID
25117176 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature123465
Source
Eur Spine J. 2012 Dec;21(12):2539-49
Publication Type
Article
Date
Dec-2012
Author
Kjersti Storheim
Jens Ivar Brox
Ida Løchting
Erik L Werner
Margreth Grotle
Author Affiliation
Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Building 37B, Nydalen, Box 4956, 0424 Oslo, Norway. Kjersti.Storheim@oslo-universitetssykehus.no
Source
Eur Spine J. 2012 Dec;21(12):2539-49
Date
Dec-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Disability Evaluation
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain - diagnosis
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods
Psychometrics - methods
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Abstract
The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a short multidimensional scale covering all domains recommended to be included as outcome measures for patients with low back pain (LBP). The purpose of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the COMI into Norwegian and to test clinimetric properties of the Norwegian COMI version in patients with non-specific LBP recruited from various clinical settings.
Ninety patients with non-specific LBP from primary care and hospital settings participated in the validation part and 61 also in the reproducibility part of the study (1 week apart). Acceptability, data quality, reproducibility and construct validity were investigated.
The questionnaire was well accepted and with little missing data and end effects. Reliability in terms of intraclass correlations (ICC) was satisfactory for the COMI index [0.89 (95 % CI 0.82-0.94)] and most single-core items. Agreement was acceptable for the COMI index [standard error of measurement (SEM(agreement)) 0.80, minimal detectable change (MDC(individual)) 2.21], but exceeded the minimal standard of acceptability in some of the individual core items. Construct validity was acceptable for the COMI index.
The Norwegian version of the COMI index shows acceptable clinimetric properties in our patient population, but some of the sub-items had shortcomings. Our study, however, support the usefulness of the COMI index as an applicable stand-alone global scale when a light respondent burden is advisable.
Notes
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3100-311124724
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2012 Aug;21 Suppl 6:S737-4921409562
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3125-911124728
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-9111124735
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12 Suppl 2):S15-2011128900
Cites: Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):8-2411784274
Cites: Behav Sci. 1974 Jan;19(1):1-154808738
Cites: Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-20810109801
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Sep 15;23(18):2003-139779535
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1923-3015534418
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jan 1;30(1):130-4015626993
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):1014-2615937673
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:516504090
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 20;31(12):1372-9; discussion 138016721302
Cites: J Psychosom Res. 2006 Jun;60(6):631-716731240
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-4217161752
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:374-919296136
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:367-7319319578
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:386-9419462185
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3:312-2019562389
Cites: Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-4920169472
Cites: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Sep;130(9):1083-9119771436
Cites: Br J Surg. 2011 Jan;98(1):148-5520814965
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2011 Mar;20(3):369-7920532924
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2011 Jul;20(7):1166-7321225437
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2012 Jan;21(1):130-721881865
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2012 Jul;21(7):1273-8222170447
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3115-2411124727
PubMed ID
22695701 View in PubMed
Less detail

Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature147315
Source
Clin J Pain. 2009 Oct;25(8):666-70
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-2009
Author
Chris G Maher
Margreth Grotle
Author Affiliation
The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. cmaher@george.org.au
Source
Clin J Pain. 2009 Oct;25(8):666-70
Date
Oct-2009
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Australasia
Cohort Studies
Disability Evaluation
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Pain Measurement - methods
Predictive value of tests
Prognosis
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Abstract
To compare the predictive ability of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire-a screening tool for psychosocial factors in patients with low back pain across 2 cultural settings (Norway and Australasia) and to establish whether the Orebro provides additional information about outcome than that provided by the baseline value of the prognostic outcome.
Prospective cohort studies with 12 month follow-up; 97 working patients were seeking primary care in Norway and 133 working individuals participated in a trial conducted in Australasia. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted with pain and disability as outcomes, and the Orebro score and baseline values of the outcome as predictors.
The predictive ability of the Orebro was similar in Norway and Australasia in all the analyses except for disability at 12 months, in which the predictive ability was significantly stronger in Norway as compared to Australasia (P=0.011). The Orebro provided additional information about outcome than that provided by the baseline value of the prognostic outcome: for pain the R-square changes were from 2.4% to 4.0% with no statistically difference between the nationalities. For disability the R-square changes in the Australasian cohort ranged from 1.9% to 4.8% and in the Norwegian cohort from 4.5% to 6.5%.
The Orebro questionnaire had similar predictive ability in Norway and Australasia when pain was used as an outcome, whereas the Orebro tended to be a stronger predictor in Norway when disability was used as outcome.
PubMed ID
19920715 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian pain catastrophizing scale in patients with low back pain.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature123164
Source
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:111
Publication Type
Article
Date
2012
Author
Linda Fernandes
Kjersti Storheim
Ida Lochting
Margreth Grotle
Author Affiliation
FORMI, Clinic for Surgery and Neurology (C1), Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Oslo, Norway. linda.fernandes1@gmail.com
Source
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:111
Date
2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Catastrophization - diagnosis - ethnology - psychology
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Disability Evaluation
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain - diagnosis - ethnology - psychology
Male
Middle Aged
Norway - ethnology
Pain Measurement - methods
Primary Health Care
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Abstract
Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS.
The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18?years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and construct validity (Spearman's rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients.
A total of 38 men and 52 women (n?=?90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (a 0.90) and the subscales rumination (a 0.83) and helplessness (a 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (a 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74?-?0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0-52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points.
The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.
Notes
Cites: Clin J Pain. 2007 Mar-Apr;23(3):270-717314588
Cites: Clin J Pain. 2011 Sep;27(7):567-7721540739
Cites: J Behav Med. 2000 Aug;23(4):351-6510984864
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-9111124735
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12 Suppl 2):S15-2011128900
Cites: Pain. 2002 Apr;96(3):319-2411973004
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Dec 1;27(23):2720-512461399
Cites: Behav Sci. 1974 Jan;19(1):1-154808738
Cites: J Clin Psychiatry. 1980 Jan;41(1):6-107351399
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):145-506222487
Cites: Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-102868172
Cites: Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-20810109801
Cites: Clin J Pain. 1991 Sep;7(3):209-181839716
Cites: Pain. 1993 Feb;52(2):157-688455963
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-328263569
Cites: Pain. 1994 Aug;58(2):201-97816488
Cites: Pain. 1995 Sep;62(3):363-728657437
Cites: J Behav Med. 1997 Dec;20(6):589-6059429990
Cites: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Sep 15;23(18):2003-139779535
Cites: Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):1014-2615937673
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-916980142
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-4217161752
Cites: J Psychosom Res. 2008 May;64(5):469-7818440399
Cites: Clin J Pain. 2008 Jun;24(5):431-718496308
Cites: J Health Psychol. 2008 Sep;13(6):820-618697895
Cites: Pain. 2008 Sep 30;139(1):47-5418430518
Cites: Spine J. 2008 Nov-Dec;8(6):948-5818024224
Cites: Pain. 2009 Sep;145(1-2):45-5119477072
Cites: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Apr;40(4):197-20520357418
Cites: Pain. 2010 Nov;151(2):330-620813461
Cites: Clin J Pain. 2011 Feb;27(2):108-1520842009
Cites: Pain. 2000 Sep;87(3):325-3410963912
PubMed ID
22726668 View in PubMed
Less detail

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire: methodological aspects of the Norwegian version.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature166863
Source
J Rehabil Med. 2006 Nov;38(6):346-53
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2006
Author
Margreth Grotle
Jens I Brox
Nina K Vøllestad
Author Affiliation
Department of Orthopaedics, Section for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Source
J Rehabil Med. 2006 Nov;38(6):346-53
Date
Nov-2006
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Acute Disease
Adolescent
Adult
Avoidance Learning
Chronic Disease
Cohort Studies
Cultural Characteristics
Disability Evaluation
Fear - psychology
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain - diagnosis - psychology - therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Prospective Studies
Questionnaires - standards
Reproducibility of Results
Translating
Abstract
To evaluate reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) for use in Norwegian patients with low back pain.
A prospective cohort study with 2 groups.
The questionnaire was tested in 123 patients with acute low back pain and 50 patients with chronic low back pain.
A translation and cross-cultural adaptation was performed. Test-retest reliability was assessed in 28 patients with chronic low back pain. Responsiveness was assessed in acute low back pain.
Two factors for the FABQ were confirmed; fear-avoidance beliefs about work (FABQ-Work) and physical activity (FABQ-PA), accounting for 60% and 54% of the total variance in acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For FABQ-Work and FABQ-PA internal consistency was 0.90 and 0.79, intra-class correlation coefficients 0.82 and 0.66, minimal detectable changes 12 and 9 points, and coefficients of variation were 16% and 23%. The FABQ correlated weakly to moderately with pain, disability, distress, and clinical variables. Standardized response means were low for FABQ-Work (0.32) and moderate (0.56) for FABQ-PA. Both FABQ subscales showed initially floor and/or ceiling effects.
The Norwegian FABQ version had acceptable factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The responsiveness of the FABQ-Work was low, and for the FABQ-PA moderate, in the acute sample.
PubMed ID
17067967 View in PubMed
Less detail

Patient-reported quality of care for osteoarthritis: development and testing of the osteoarthritis quality indicator questionnaire.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature116406
Source
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Jul;65(7):1043-51
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jul-2013
Author
Nina Østerås
Andrew Garratt
Margreth Grotle
Bård Natvig
Ingvild Kjeken
Tore K Kvien
Kåre B Hagen
Author Affiliation
National Resource Center for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, N-0319 Oslo, Norway. nina.osteras@medisin.uio.no
Source
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Jul;65(7):1043-51
Date
Jul-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Anti-Inflammatory Agents - therapeutic use
Cohort Studies
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Observer Variation
Office Visits
Osteoarthritis - diagnosis - therapy
Patient Education as Topic
Patients
Quality Improvement
Quality Indicators, Health Care
Questionnaires
Referral and Consultation
Reproducibility of Results
Abstract
To develop and test a new instrument for patient self-reported quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care, and to provide quality indicator (QI) pass rates in a Norwegian OA cohort.
The OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire was developed using published QIs, expert panels, and patient interviews. Self-reported data were collected from 359 persons in a Norwegian OA cohort, and test-retest reliability and validity were assessed. Separate QI pass rates and summary QI pass rates were calculated.
The 17-item questionnaire includes QIs related to patient education and information, regular provider assessments, referrals, and pharmacologic treatment. The patient self-reported questionnaire was completed with minimal respondent burden. Support for content validity was confirmed by 2 patient research partners and 2 expert panels. All 10 predefined hypotheses relating to construct validity were confirmed. Test-retest kappa coefficients ranged from 0.20-0.80 and the percentage of exact agreement ranged from 62-90%. The mean pass rate for individual QIs was 31% (range 5-49%). The median summary QI pass rate was 27% (interquartile range 12-50%), with lower summary pass rates for nonpharmacologic compared to pharmacologic treatments.
To our knowledge, this is the first instrument developed to measure patient-reported QI pass rates for OA care. This study indicates that the OA-QI questionnaire is acceptable to persons with OA, and its short format makes it suitable for population surveys. The low patient self-reported QI pass rates in this study suggest a potential for quality improvement in OA care.
PubMed ID
23401461 View in PubMed
Less detail

Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the patient generated index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programmes.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature117091
Source
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 May;52(5):924-32
Publication Type
Article
Date
May-2013
Author
Mari Klokkerud
Margreth Grotle
Ida Løchting
Ingvild Kjeken
Kåre Birger Hagen
Andrew M Garratt
Author Affiliation
National Resource Center for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, P.O. Box 23, 0319 Oslo, Norway. mklokkerud@hotmail.com
Source
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 May;52(5):924-32
Date
May-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Inpatients
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pain Measurement
Patient Participation
Psychometrics
Questionnaires
Range of Motion, Articular - physiology
Rehabilitation Centers
Reproducibility of Results
Rheumatic Diseases - diagnosis - rehabilitation
Risk assessment
Self Care - methods
Severity of Illness Index
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Abstract
In rehabilitation, treatment is individually tailored to each patient's goals. Individualized instruments allow patients to choose domains that they consider important, which may make them particularly appropriate as evaluative tools in this setting. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the patient generated index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in inpatient rehabilitation or self-management programmes.
Patients completed the PGI together with other outcome measures at arrival and 5 and 52 weeks after arrival. The PGI was assessed for data quality by completion rates, reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), agreement by standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Construct validity was assessed by testing a priori hypotheses regarding correlation between PGI scores and other outcome measures. Responsiveness was assessed by an a priori hypothesis regarding the correlation of different change scores and standardized response means (SRMs).
A total of 145 patients participated and 118 (81%) completed the PGI correctly. The ICC was 0.87, SEM 7.25 and SDC 20.10. Ninety-three per cent of the hypotheses of correlation were confirmed in tests for construct validity. Responsiveness was confirmed in 53% and 71% of hypotheses tested at 5 and 52 weeks. SRMs were 0.2 and 0.4, respectively.
The results support the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Norwegian version of the PGI in patients with rheumatic diseases and its application as an outcome measure in rehabilitation or self-management programmes. Further research is needed to improve completion rates for the PGI.
PubMed ID
23335634 View in PubMed
Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.