Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 2539–2549 | Cite as

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

  • Kjersti Storheim
  • Jens Ivar Brox
  • Ida Løchting
  • Erik L. Werner
  • Margreth Grotle
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Multidimensional scale COMI Clinimetric properties Low back pain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

None.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(12 Suppl 2):S15–S20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J (2006) The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 60:631–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L (1974) The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci 19:1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrer M, Pellise F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine Phila Pa 31:1372–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Kessler JT, Melloh M, Zweig T, Aghayev E, Roder C (2010) Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 20:369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleinstueck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF, Grob D, Lattig F, Mutter U, Porchet F (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:1166–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lattig F, Grob D, Kleinstueck FS, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, O’Riordan D, Mannion AF (2009) Ratings of global outcome at the first post-operative assessment after spinal surgery: how often do the surgeon and patient agree? Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):386–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lurie J (2000) A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine 25:3125–3129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    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 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE (2006) Maximising response to postal questionnaires–a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sobottke R, Rollinghoff M, Zarghooni K, Zarghooni K, Schluter-Brust K, Delank KS, Seifert H, Zweig T, Eysel P (2010) Spondylodiscitis in the elderly patient: clinical mid-term results and quality of life. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:1083–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staerkle RF, Villiger P (2011) Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 98:148–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Waddell G (1998) The back pain revolution. Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine 29(Phila Pa 17):1923–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, Melloh M, Munting E, Tuschel A, Aebi M, Roder C (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):312–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kjersti Storheim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jens Ivar Brox
    • 2
  • Ida Løchting
    • 1
  • Erik L. Werner
    • 3
  • Margreth Grotle
    • 1
  1. 1.Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI)Oslo University Hospital and University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsOslo University Hospital and University of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Research Unit for General PracticeUni HealthBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations