Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain

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

Abstract

Purpose

To produce a cross-culturally adapted and validated Turkish version of The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) Back questionnaire.

Methods

Ninety-six Turkish-speaking patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) were recruited from orthopedic and physical therapy outpatient clinics in a public hospital. They completed a booklet of questionnaires containing Turkish version of COMI, adjectival pain scale, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, European 5 Dimension Questionnaire and brief version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire. Within following 7–14 days, 67 patients, reported no or minimal changes in their back pain status, completed the Turkish COMI again to assess reproducibility.

Results

Data quality was good with very few missing answers. COMI summary index score displayed 3% floor effects and no ceiling effects. The correlations between the COMI summary index score and each of the full instrument whole scores were found to be excellent to very good (ρ = − 0.81 to 0.74). Reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.97). Standard error of measurement (SEMagreement) was acceptable at 0.41 and the minimum detectable change (MDC95%) was 1.14.

Conclusion

Turkish version of the COMI has acceptable psychometric properties. It is a valid and reliable instrument and cross-culturally adapted, in accordance with established guidelines, for the use by Turkish-speaking patients. It can be recommended for use in evaluation of patients with chronic LBP in daily practice, in international multicenter studies and in spine registry systems.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jørstad-Stein EC et al (2006) Maximising response to postal questionnaires—a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ et al (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R et al (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS et al (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):367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O et al (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000218477.53318.bc (discussion 1380)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M et al (2012) 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 21:130–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1992-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M et al (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1741-6

    Google Scholar 

  8. Damasceno LHF, Rocha PAG, Barbosa ES et al (2012) 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 21:1273–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2100-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Storheim K, Brox JI, Løchting I et al (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 21:2539–2549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2393-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J et al (2013) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 22:995–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2607-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Qiao J, Zhu F, Zhu Z et al (2013) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the core outcome measures index (COMI). Eur Spine J 22:2821–2826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2761-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Klemencsics I, Lazary A, Valasek T et al (2015) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hungarian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI Back). Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3750-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H (2001) Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:2738–2743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:141–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fidaner H, Elbi H, Fidaner C, Eser SYEE (1999) Psychometric properties of WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF. 3P Derg (J 3P) 7:23–40

    Google Scholar 

  18. The WHOQOL Group (1998) The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 46:1569–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabin R, De Charro F (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33:337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kahyaoğlu Süt H, Unsar S (2011) Is EQ-5D a valid quality of life instrument in patients with acute coronary syndrome? Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 11:156–162. https://doi.org/10.5152/akd.2011.037

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 4:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)66402-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hyland ME (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2000.20619

    Google Scholar 

  26. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nevill AM, Lane AM, Kilgour LJ et al (2001) Stability of psychometric questionnaires. J Sports Sci 19:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101750158358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS et al (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):374–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gaziosmanpaşa Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Karayolları Mahallesi, Osmanbey Caddesi, 621 Sokak, Gaziosmanpaşa, 34255, Istanbul, Turkey

    Engin Çetin

  2. Physical Treatment and Rehabilitation, Istanbul Physical Treatment and Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Evrim Coşkun Çelik

  3. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ankara ARTES Spine Center, Ankara, Turkey

    Emre Acaroğlu

  4. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey

    Haluk Berk

Authors
  1. Engin Çetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evrim Coşkun Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emre Acaroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haluk Berk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Engin Çetin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 116 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çetin, E., Çelik, E.C., Acaroğlu, E. et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 27, 93–100 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5329-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5329-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation