Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity and Reliability Study of the Italian Version of the Back Pain Functional Scale

Abstract

Introduction. The Back Pain Functional Scale is a scale to assess disability in Low Back Pain patients. The purpose of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and validate the BPFS from the original English language into Italian. Materials and methods. Translation and cultural adaptation have been performed following international guidelines. 170 italian-speaking subjects with low back pain were recruited; 58 of them also performed the re-test. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's Alpha and test-retest reliability was assessed by calculating the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Exploratory factor analysis and was performed to assess the construct validity and the correlation with other clinical scales was observed through Pearson's correlation coefficients. Results. High internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.912) and very good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.956) were found. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed statistically significant correlations (p < 0.01) with the BPFS, FRI and ODI. Conclusions. The Italian version of the BPFS showed with good reliability and construct validity. This scale can be considered for the assessment of functional disability in subjects with LBP: short, intuitive and easy to understand. It can certainly be used for both clinical practice and research.

Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Total Disability Index in Patients with Spine Pain and Disability: An Italian Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validation and Translation

“…In particular they analyze the number of symptomatic anatomical sites rather than a particular site, both in the general population and in the working population. Other back's questionnaires analyze chronic and acute pain too for a wider use in the population, is the case of the Back Pain Functional Scale (19), already validated in Italian language. The results of these studies indicate a moderate prevalence of symptoms strictly confined to a specific anatomical site (prevalence estimated from 15 to 30%, depending on the study) and instead a higher prevalence of multi-site musculoskeletal disorders (20).…”