Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Spine Functional Index

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was a cross-cultural adaptation of the Spine Functional Index to produce a Polish version (SFI-PL). Further, the psychometric properties were evaluated with standardized criteria patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a symptomatic Polish spine population.

Methods

Linguistic adaptation complied with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to produce the SFI-PL. Subjects with spine conditions, all areas and multi-area, were recruited from a Polish Specialist Hospital (n = 225, age = 45.7 ± 16.0 years, range 18–87, female = 60%, symptoms duration = 13.93 ± 27.56 weeks, range 5–84). Baseline internal consistency, reliability and validity were examined and included the SFI-PL, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L) and an 11-point pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) with retest at 3–7 days (= 5 days). Practicality for readability was considered within the face and content validity and completion and scoring time calculated.

Results

Statistical analysis showed excellent internal consistency (α = 0.90) and high test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.98). The error score was determined with the SEM = 3.14 (MDC 90% CI = 7.33%). The construct validity analysis demonstrated strong correlations between the SFI-PL, the NDI (r = 0.73) and the ODI (r = 0.82); moderate with the EQ index value (0.70) and EQ-VAS (r = 0.56). Time to complete (229 s) and score (27 s) were determined.

Conclusions

The SFI-PL is a psychometrically sound PROM for Polish-speaking patients with spine conditions. The results support previous findings from the original—English and six other language versions for internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and validity.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milanow I (2014) Zespół bólowy kręgosłupa. Pediatr Med Rodz 10(3):253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Drużbicki M, Depa A (2008) Ocena częstości występowania zespołów bólowych lędźwiowego odcinka kręgosłupa w zależności od charakteru wykonywanej pracy. Prz Med Uniw Rzesz 1:34–41

    Google Scholar 

  3. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(2):99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22):2940–2953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davidson M, Keating J (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roland MO, Morris RW (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI (1995) The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1 20(3):341–352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Holt AE, Shaw NJ, Shetty A, Greenough CG (2002) The reliability of the low back outcome score for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15 27(2):206–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14(7):409–415

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jordan A, Manniche C, Mosdal C, Hindsberger C (1998) The Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 21(8):520–527

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leak A, Cooper J, Dyer S, Williams K, Turner-Stokes L, Frank A (1994) The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, devised to measure neck pain and disability. Rheumatology 33:469–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/33.5.469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 31(12):1372–1379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-011-1921-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feise RJ, Menke M (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26(1):78–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabel CP, Melloh M, Burkett B, Michener LA (2019) Spine Functional Index: development and clinimetric validation of a new whole-spine functional outcome measure. Spine J 19(2):e19–e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuesta-Vargas AI, Gabel ChP (2014) Validation of a Spanish version of the Spine Functional Index health and quality of life outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-96

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tonga E, Gabel ChP, Karayazgan S, Cuesta-Vargas AI (2015) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Spine Functional Index. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0219-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou XY, Xu XM, Fan JP, Wang F, Wu SY, Zhang ZC, Yang YL, Li M, We XZ (2017) Cross-cultural validation of simplified Chinese version of Spine Functional Index. Health Qual Life Outcomes 15:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0785-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tae-Sung I (2017) The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Spine Functional Index. J Phys Ther Sci 29(6):1082–1084. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.29.1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reza H, Mokhtarinia HR, Hosseini A, Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A, Gabel CP, Zohrabi M (2018) Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the Spine Functional Index. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0928-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Misterska E, Jankowski R, Glowacki M (2011) Quebec back pain disability scale, low back outcome score and revised Oswestry low back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: evaluation of Polish versions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(26):E1722–E1729. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318216ad48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J, Kloc W, Libionka W (2013) Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Polish version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 38(4):237–243. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827e948b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guzy G, Vernon H, Polczyk R, Szpitalak M (2013) Psychometric validation of the authorized Polish version of the Neck Disability Index. Disabil Rehabil 35(25):2132–2137. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.771706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Opara J, Szary S, Kucharz E (2006) Polish cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for evaluation of quality of life in patients with low back pain. Spine 31(23):2744–2746. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000244632.76447.62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miekisiak G, Banach M, Kiwic G, Kubaszewski Ł, Kaczmarczyk J, Sulewski A, Kloc W, Libionka W, Latka D, Kollataj M, Zaluski R (2014) Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the neck. Eur Spine J 23(4):898–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3129-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P (2005) Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 8(2):94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Lex MB, de Vet H (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 4:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Niewada M, Wrona W, Busschbach JJV (2010) Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: first TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health 13(2):289–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00596.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chien CW, Bagraith KS, Khan A, Deen M, Strong J (2013) Comparative responsiveness of verbal and numerical rating scales to measure pain intensity in patients with chronic pain. J Pain 14(12):1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  32. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL (2011) Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Costello AB, Osborne J (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 10(7):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  34. Leahy E, Davidson M, Benjamin D, Wajswelner H (2016) Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for people with pain in any spine region. A systematic review. Man Ther 22:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was partly funded by University of Rzeszow. The funding body was not involved in the design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing the manuscript or decision to publish the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Bejer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The article has not been submitted elsewhere or published previously, and the authors have no relationships that might lead to conflicts of interest. All authors have read the final version of the manuscript; they meet the requirements for authorship and believe that the manuscript represents honest work.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Bioethical Commission of the Faculty of Medicine, the University of Rzeszow granted permission to conduct research (No. 2017/06/31b).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPT 266 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1

SPINE FUNCTIONAL INDEX – WERSJA POLSKA (SFI – PL) DATA: ____________________

IMIĘ I NAZWISKO: _______________ __ _________________________________________________ __

URAZ/PROBLEM: _________________ Szyja □ Środkowa Część Pleców □ Dolna Część Pleców □

PROSZĘ UZUPEŁNIĆ: Problemy z kręgosłupem mogą utrudniać wykonywanie codziennych czynności. Poniższa lista zawiera zdania, którymi ludzie zazwyczaj opisują swoje dolegliwości. Pomyśl o sobie na przestrzeni kilku ostatnich dni. Jeśli stwierdzenie dotyczy Ciebie, zaznacz kwadracik „CZĘŚCIOWO” lub „TAK”. Jeśli stwierdzenie nie dotyczy Ciebie, zaznacz kwadracik „NIE”.

Z POWODU MOJEGO KRĘGOSŁUPA

Nie 0

Częściowo ½

Tak 1

 

1. Pozostaję w domu przez większość czasu

2. Często zmieniam pozycję dla większego komfortu

3. Unikam ciężkich prac (np. sprzątania, podnoszenia rzeczy cięższych niż 5 kg, wykonywania prac w ogrodzie itp.)

4. Częściej odpoczywam

5. Proszę inne osoby, by zrobiły za mnie pewne czynności

6. Odczuwam ból/mam problem prawie przez cały czas

7. Mam trudność z podnoszeniem i noszeniem (np. toreb, zakupów o wadze do 5 kg)

8. Zmienił mi się apetyt

9. Chodzenie lub rekreacja lub aktywność sportowa jest utrudniona

10. Mam trudności z normalnymi domowymi lub rodzinnymi obowiązkami i pracami

11. Gorzej sypiam

12. Potrzebuję pomocy w samoobsłudze (np. myciu i utrzymywaniu higieny)

13. Moja codzienna aktywność jest utrudniona (praca, kontakty społeczne)

14. Łatwiej się irytuję i/lub wpadam w złość

15. Czuję się słabszy/-a i/lub zesztywniały/-a

16. Moje niezależne przemieszczanie się jest utrudnione (prowadzenie samochodu, korzystanie z transportu publicznego)

17. Potrzebuję pomocy przy ubieraniu się lub robię to wolniej

18. Mam trudności, aby obrócić się w łóżku

19. Mam trudności z koncentracją i/lub czytaniem

20. Trudno jest mi siedzieć

21. Mam trudności, gdy siadam i wstaję z krzesła

22. Mogę utrzymywać pozycję stojącą tylko przez krótki czas

23. Mam trudność z kucaniem i/lub klękaniem

24. Mam trudność ze schylaniem się (np. podnoszeniem rzeczy lub nakładaniem skarpetek)

25. Wychodzę po schodach wolniej lub trzymam się barierki

Wynik SFI - PL: W celu obliczenia wyniku – dodaj zaznaczone pola:

_______WYNIK CAŁKOWITY (punkty SFI-PL) 100 Skala: 100 – (WYNIK CAŁKOWITYx4) = _________%

MDC* (90% CI*): Szyja = 6.8% lub 1.7 SFI-PL pkt.; Środkowa i Dolnych Pleców = 7.7% lub 1,9 SFI-PL pkt.;

Cały kręgosłup = 7.3% lub 1.8 SFI-PL pkt. Zmiana mniejsza niż podana może wynikać z błędu.

  1. *MDC—Minimalnie Zauważalna Zmiana
  2. *CI—Przedział Ufności

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 SEM and MDC90 pubished values and recalculated MDC90 values

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bejer, A., Kupczyk, M., Kwaśny, J. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Spine Functional Index. Eur Spine J 29, 1424–1434 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06250-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06250-4

Keywords

Navigation