A comparison of four disability scales for Turkish patients with neck pain

Köse, Gülşah; Hepgüler, Simin; Atamaz, Funda; Oder, Gonca

doi:10.2340/16501977-0060

Cited by 62 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In some articles, multiple questionnaires were evaluated. The following questionnaires were studied: the Neck Disability Index was evaluated in 24 studies 1, ; the Neck Pain and Disability Scale in 13 studies 2,9,21,22,24,25,29,[32][33][34][35][36][37] ; the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire in 5 studies 12,38-41 ; the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire in 10 studies 14,21,22,26,29,[42][43][44][45][46] ; the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale in 4 studies 17,29,47,48 ; the Core Neck Questionnaire in 2 studies 26,49 ; the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire in 3 studies [50][51][52] ; and the Core Whiplash Outcome Measure in 1 study. 53 Internal consistency was evaluated in 35 studies (8 questionnaires); reliability in 36 studies (7 questionnaires); measurement error in 21 studies (6 questionnaires); content validity in 16 studies (6 questionnaires); structural validity in 11 studies (4 questionnaires); construct validity (hypotheses testing) in 41 studies (8 questionnaires); and responsiveness in 37 studies (8 questionnaires).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Quality of Studies on the Measurement Properties of Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaires: A Systematic Review

Terwee

Schellingerhout

Verhagen

et al. 2011

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Quality of Studies on the Measurement Properties of Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaires: A Systematic Review

Terwee

Schellingerhout

Verhagen

et al. 2011

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the present study, the reliability of the NDI-U was determined by assessing test-retest reliability across repeated measures, internal consistency and measurement errors [45]. We expected that the test-retest coefficient would be > 0.80, and we set the value of Cronbach’s alpha of the NDI-U to be ≥ 0.70 [10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 25, 29, 35, 46, 47]. A fair to moderate correlation (0.25 ≤ r < 0.75) between single items and the total score was expected [10, 15, 25, 35].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urdu version of the neck disability index: a reliability and validity study

Farooq

Mohseni-Bandpei

Gilani

et al. 2017

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite the wide use of the neck disability index (NDI) for assessing disability in patients with neck pain, the NDI has not yet been translated and validated in Urdu. The first purpose of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NDI into the Urdu language (NDI-U). The second purpose was to investigate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the NDI-U in Urdu-speaking patients experiencing chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP).MethodsTranslation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original version of the NDI were carried out using previously described procedures. Seventy-six patients with CMNP and thirty healthy participants were recruited for the study. NDI-U and visual analogue scales for pain intensity (VASpain) and disability (VASdisability) were administered to all the participants at baseline and to the patients 3 weeks after receiving physiotherapy intervention. The global rating of change scale (GROC) was also administered at this time. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were carried out on forty-six randomly selected patients two days after they completed the NDI-U. The NDI-U was evaluated for factor analysis, content validity, construct validity (discriminative and convergent validity) and responsiveness.ResultsAn intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) revealed excellent test-retest reliability for all items (ICC2,1 = 0.86–0.98) and total scores (ICC2,1 = 0.99) of the NDI-U. The NDI-U was found internally consistent with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 and a fair to good correlation between single items and the NDI-U total scores (r = 0.34 to 0.89). Factor analysis of the NDI-U produced two factors explaining 66.71% of the variance. Content validity was good, as no floor or ceiling effects were detected for the NDI-U total score. To determine discriminative validity, an independent t-test revealed a significant difference in the NDI-U total scores between the patients and healthy controls (P < 0.001). For convergent validity, Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed a strong correlation between NDI-U and VASdisability (r = 0.83, P < 0.001) and a moderate correlation between NDI-U and VASpain (r = 0.62, P < 0.001). To measure responsiveness, an independent t-test showed a significant difference in the NDI-U change scores between the stable and the improved groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, moderate correlations were found between the NDI-U change scores and the GROC (r = 0.50, P < 0.001), VASdisability change scores (r = 0.58, P < 0.001) and VASpain change scores (r = 0.55, P < 0.001).ConclusionThe results showed that the NDI-U is a reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to measure disability in Urdu-speaking patients with CMNP.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1469-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Participants also completed the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), which has been found to be reliable, valid, and sensitive in objectively measuring neck pain and associated disability. 23,24 The JTech Power Track II handheld dynamometer (JTech Medical, Salt Lake City, UT) was used to assess lower trapezius strength by measuring the amount of force (N) required by the examiner to overcome the participant's maximum muscular effort. 3 Handheld dynamometry has been found to have high interrater and intrarater reliability 3,4,10 and has been determined to be a valid method of strength assessment.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%