The translation, validity and reliability of the German version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Abstract

BackgroundThe Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) claims to assess disrupted self-perception of the back. The aim of this study was to develop a German version of the FreBAQ (FreBAQ-G) and assess its test-retest reliability, its known-groups validity and its convergent validity with another purported measure of back perception.MethodsThe FreBaQ-G was translated following international guidelines for the transcultural adaptation of questionnaires. Thirty-five patients with non-specific CLBP and 48 healthy participants were recruited. Assessor one administered the FreBAQ-G to each patient with CLBP on two separate days to quantify intra-observer reliability. Assessor two administered the FreBaQ-G to each patient on day 1. The scores were compared to those obtained by assessor one on day 1 to assess inter-observer reliability. Known-groups validity was quantified by comparing the FreBAQ-G score between patients and healthy controls. To assess convergent validity, patient’s FreBAQ-G scores were correlated to their two-point discrimination (TPD) scores.ResultsIntra- and Inter-observer reliability were both moderate with ICC3.1 = 0.88 (95%CI: 0.77 to 0.94) and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.79 to 0.94), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer limits of agreement (LoA) were 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0–8.1) and 6.0 (4.8–7.8), respectively. The adjusted mean difference between patients and controls was 5.4 (95%CI: 3.0 to 7.8, p<0.01). Patient’s FreBAQ-G scores were not associated with TPD thresholds (Pearson’s r = -0.05, p = 0.79).ConclusionsThe FreBAQ-G demonstrated a degree of reliability and known-groups validity. Interpretation of patient level data should be performed with caution because the LoA were substantial. It did not demonstrate convergent validity against TPD. Floor effects of some items of the FreBAQ-G may have influenced the validity and reliability results. The clinimetric properties of the FreBAQ-G require further investigation as a simple measure of disrupted self-perception of the back before firm recommendations on its use can be made.

Perceived Body Distortion Rather Than Actual Body Distortion Is Associated With Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults With Cerebral Palsy: A Preliminary Investigation

“…Furthermore, the score on the FreBAQ questionnaire in the CP_Pain population was no different from that seen in a matched group with LBP and no CP and very similar to the results of previous investigations that have used the FreBAQ to assess body perception in general LBP populations . This builds on work demonstrating that lumbopelvic self‐perception is impaired in people with LBP compared to matched control groups and extends this finding to include people with LBP and CP.…”

Explicit and Implicit Own's Body and Space Perception in Painful Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Scoping Review

“…The first calibration test was conducted on 239 titles and abstracts, and the second on 12 full-texts: the inter-rater agreement was, respectively, of 93 and 100%, and was reached for both procedures at the third round, at the end of which the reviewers express no need of further training. The search strategies initially produced 7,818 records from all the databases, and 13 from authors' personal databases (Morone et al, 2012;Paolucci et al, 2012Paolucci et al, , 2016Wand et al, 2013a;Hirakawa et al, 2014;Louw et al, 2017;Stanton et al, 2017Stanton et al, , 2018Adamczyk et al, 2018a,b;Ehrenbrusthoff et al, 2018;Magni et al, 2018;Nishigami et al, 2019). After removal of duplicates and exclusion of clearly irrelevant records on the basis of the title and abstract, 123 full-texts were screened.…”

“…A graphical distribution of included studies grouped by clinical conditions examined is shown in Figure 3. Twenty-five studies (Grod and Diakow, 2002;Moseley, 2008;Wand et al, 2010Wand et al, , 2013bWand et al, , 2014Wand et al, , 2016Docherty et al, 2012;Lauche et al, 2012a;Valenzuela-Moguillansky, 2013;Hirakawa et al, 2014;Gilpin et al, 2015;Mibu et al, 2015;Nishigami et al, 2015Nishigami et al, , 2017Nishigami et al, , 2018Treleaven and Takasaki, 2015;Beales et al, 2016;Janssens et al, 2017;Moreira et al, 2017;Adamczyk et al, 2018a,b;Ehrenbrusthoff et al, 2018;Magni et al, 2018;Martínez et al, 2018) studies concerned the assessment of SoP dysfunctions, while twelve interventional studies (Barker et al, 2008;Preston and Newport, 2011;Wand et al, 2011Wand et al, , 2013aMorone et al, 2012;Paolucci et al, 2012;Diers et al, 2013;Vetrano et al, 2013;Ryan et al, 2014;Louw et al, 2017;Stanton et al, 2018;Nishigami et al, 2019) investigated the effects of perception-based intervention to reduce pain or to correct perceptual distortions. One study, (Lauche et al, 2012a) was included both in assessment and in intervention studies: it is a qualitative study i...…”

“…The distribution of research designs adopted for assessment studies is graphically represented in Figure 5. A conspicuous number of these studies is composed by those validating the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) (Wand et al, 2014) and the Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire (FreKAQ) (Nishigami et al, 2017), including validation studies into other languages (Janssens et al, 2017;Ehrenbrusthoff et al, 2018;Nishigami et al, 2018), and cross-sectional or case-control investigations across different clinical samples (Wand et al, 2013aBeales et al, 2016). Figure 6 shows the research designs adopted in the intervention studies included, of which a large part were pre-clinical experimental studies (Diers et al, 2013;Nishigami et al, 2019).…”

“…For neck pain, was considered 3.5 to 5 U on the 50-U Neck Pain Disability Index or 7 to 10% change (Pool et al, 2007;Stratford et al, 2009) for function and 2.5 on an 10-U NRS (25% change) for pain (Pool et al, 2007). 2015; Treleaven and Takasaki, 2015;Martínez et al, 2018), while the remaining 19 studies were clinical investigations (Moseley, 2008;Wand et al, 2010Wand et al, , 2013aWand et al, ,b, 2014Wand et al, , 2016Lauche et al, 2012a;Valenzuela-Moguillansky, 2013;Hirakawa et al, 2014;Mibu et al, 2015;Nishigami et al, 2015Nishigami et al, , 2017Nishigami et al, , 2018Beales et al, 2016;Janssens et al, 2017;Adamczyk et al, 2018a,b;Ehrenbrusthoff et al, 2018;Magni et al, 2018).…”