Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain
- 334 Downloads
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 (SEMagreement) 0.80, minimal detectable change (MDCindividual) 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.
KeywordsMultidimensional scale COMI Clinimetric properties Low back pain
The authors acknowledge clinicians at Hans and Olaf physiotherapy institute, Hjelp24NIMI, Stadion Fysikalske, Aker University Hospital (pain clinic), Friskvernsenteret and the National Hospital (Orthopaedic Department) for recruiting patients for the study. We also thank all patients participating in the study.
Conflict of interest
- 1.The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208Google Scholar
- 2.Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 7.Damasceno LH, Rocha PA, Barbosa ES, Barros CA, Canto FT, Defino HL, Mannion AF (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian–Portuguese language. Eur Spine J (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- 12.Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M, Rozenberg S, De GP, Faundez A, Balague F, Porchet F, Mannion AF (2011) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 21(1):130–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2005) Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine Phila Pa 30:130–140Google Scholar
- 18.Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, Luca A, Zaina F, Negrini S, Schulz PJ (2011) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- 20.Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19:539–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 29.Waddell G (1998) The back pain revolution. Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar