Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 863–872 | Cite as

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck

  • Marco MonticoneEmail author
  • Simona Ferrante
  • Serena Maggioni
  • Gisel Grenat
  • Giovanni A. Checchia
  • Marco Testa
  • Marco G. Teli
  • Anne F. Mannion
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a cross-culturally adapted questionnaire, the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck).

Methods

The COMI-neck was cross-culturally adapted for the Italian language using established procedures. The following psychometric properties of the instrument were then assessed in patients with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation: test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity by comparing COMI-neck with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical pain rating scale, and the EuroQol-Five Dimension (Pearson’s correlations); and responsiveness by means of Standardized Response Mean (SRM), unpaired t tests, and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 103 subjects. The COMI-neck summary score displayed no relevant floor or ceiling effects. Test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.87). With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent with the scores of the reference questionnaires (r = 0.40–0.80). The mean change scores for the Italian COMI-neck differed significantly between patients with a good global outcome and those with a poor outcome (p = 0.002); SRM for the good outcome group was 1.23, and for the poor outcome group 0.40. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.62–0.85).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that the Italian version of the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

Keywords

COMI-neck Outcome Rehabilitation Chronic neck pain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the physiotherapists and the patients who took part in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cotè P, van der Velde G, Cassidy D, Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Holm LW et al (2008) The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(Suppl):S60–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Holm LW, Cassidy JD, Guzman J et al (2008) The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(Suppl):S39–S51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):367–373PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, 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
  6. 6.
    Ferrer M, Pellisé 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 1976) 31:1372–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):312–320PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fankhauser CD, Mutter U, Aghayev E, Mannion AF (2012) Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J 21(1):101–114PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, Luca A, Zaina F, Negrini S, Schulz PJ (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S737–S749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Baird AC, Darden BV 2nd (1999) Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale: item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(13):1290–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monticone M, Baiardi P, Nido N, Righini C, Tomba A, Giovanazzi E (2008) Development of the Italian version of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, NPDS-I. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(13):E429–E434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savoia E, Fantini MP, Pandolfi PP, Dallolio L, Collina N (2006) Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:47PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prieto L, Sacristan JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huskinson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Revicki D, Hay RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2006) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53:459–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204–1217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beurskens AJHM, de Vet HCW, Koke AJA (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Monticone
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simona Ferrante
    • 2
  • Serena Maggioni
    • 1
  • Gisel Grenat
    • 3
  • Giovanni A. Checchia
    • 3
  • Marco Testa
    • 4
  • Marco G. Teli
    • 5
  • Anne F. Mannion
    • 6
  1. 1.Operative Unit of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Scientific Institute of Lissone, Salvatore Maugeri FoundationInstitute of Care and Research (IRCCS)Lissone (Milan)Italy
  2. 2.Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Information and BioengineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation DepartmentSanta Corona HospitalPietra LigureItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Riabilitazione, Genetica, Oftalmologia e Scienze Materno-InfantiliGenova UniversitySavonaItaly
  5. 5.Department of OrthopaedicsRegional HospitalLegnanoItaly
  6. 6.Spine CenterSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations