Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

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

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are widely used in spine care. The development of reliable and valid National versions of spine-related disability questionnaires is strongly recommended from both the clinical and scientific points-of-view. The aims of this study were to adapt and validate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS) for use with the Hungarian language.

Methods

After translating and culturally adapting the ODI and QDS, 133 patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorder filled in the questionnaire booklet twice within 2 weeks. Subjects completed the Hungarian versions of the two PROMs as well as the WHOQoL-BREF validated as a general life quality questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale of pain. Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of the questionnaires were determined, as were the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) scores.

Results

The Hungarian ODI consisted of one factor that showed good internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.890). The QDS showed a four-factor structure with Cronbach-α values between 0.788 and 0.917. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed. The test–retest analysis showed excellent reliability of the Hungarian ODI and QDS. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.927 and 0.923, respectively. SEM values of 4.8 and 5.2 resulted in a MDC of 13 and 14 points in the Hungarian ODI and QDS, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) between pain and ODI was 0.680 (p < 0.001) and the correlation between the ODI and the physical subscale of WHOQoL was also very good (r = −0.705, p < 0.001). The QDS total score and its four subscales correlated significantly with pain and with the physical subscale of WHOQoL (r > 0.4, p < 0.001). The level of disability measured by the Hungarian ODI and QDS was significantly higher in the surgical subgroup than in non-surgically treated patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Translation and cultural adaptation of the ODI and QDS were successful. Hungarian versions of the ODI and QDS proved to be reliable, valid PROMs confirming that they can be used in future clinical and scientific work with Hungarian-speaking spine patients.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rapp SM (2011) European orthopaedic community steps up its adoption of patient-based outcomes. Orthopaedics Today Europe May/June

  2. FDA’s Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research (2009)

  3. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J (2007) Self-report outcome measures for low back pain: searching for international cross-cultural adaptations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1028–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fitzpatrick R, Adam S, Ross H et al (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2(14):1–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkenmaier C, Suess O, Pfeiffer M et al (2010) The European multicenter trial on the safety and efficacy of guided oblique lumbar interbody fusion (GO-LIF). BMC musculoskelet disord 11:199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D et al (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur spine j 18(Suppl 3):312–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F et al (2010) The Epidemiology of low back pain. Best pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:769–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz JN (2006) Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl2):21–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pietikäinen S, Silventoinen K, Svedberg P et al (2011) Health-related and sociodemographic risk factors for disability pension due to low back disorders: a 30-year prospective Finnish Twin Cohort Study. J Occup Env Med 53:488–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horváth G, Koroknai G, Acs B et al (2010) Prevalence of low back pain and lumbar spine degenerative disorders. Questionnaire survey and clinical-radiological analysis of a representative Hungarian population. Int Orthop 34:1245–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C et al (2004) Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation. Eur Spine J 13:301–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952 discussion 2952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M et al (1995) The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine 20:341–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M et al (1996) The Quebec back pain disability scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol 49:151–161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Payares K, Lugo LH, Morales V et al (2011) Validation in Colombia of the Oswestry disability questionnaire in patients with low back pain. Spine 36:E1730–E1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Denis I, Fortin L (2012) Development of a French-Canadian Version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 37:E439–E444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C et al (2006) Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J 15:1705–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu H, Tao H, Luo Z (2009) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index. Spine 34:1211–1216 discussion 1217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lue Y-J, Hsieh C-L, Huang M-H et al (2008) Development of a Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index version 2.1. Spine 33:2354–2360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JCT et al (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15:55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim D-Y, Lee S-H, Lee H-Y et al (2005) Validation of the Korean version of the Oswestry disability index. Spine 30:E123–E127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 36(26):E1722–E1729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Ferrari S et al (2009) Development of the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I): a cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity study. Spine 34:2090–2095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H et al (2006) The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec back pain disability scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine 31:E454–E459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pekkanen L, Kautiainen H, Ylinen J et al (2011) Reliability and validity study of the Finnish version 2.0 of the Oswestry disability index. Spine 36:332–338

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yakut E, Düger T, Oksüz C et al (2004) Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine 29:581–585 discussion 585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vigatto R, Alexandre NMC, Correa Filho HR (2007) Development of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Spine 32:481–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 35:241–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Boscainos PJ, Sapkas G, Stilianessi E et al (2003) Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:40–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Christakou A, Andriopoulou M, Asimakopoulos P (2011) Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Quebec back pain disability scale. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 24:145–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I et al (2009) Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain. Spine 34:E219–E224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodrigues MF, Michel-Crosato E, Cardoso JR et al (2009) Psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian Quebec back pain disability scale questionnaire. Spine 34:E459–E464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Suh KT, Kim JI, Lim JM et al (2011) Validation of the Korean version of the quebec back pain disability scale. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(8):447–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schoppink LE, van Tulder MW, Koes BW et al (1996) Reliability and validity of the Dutch adaptation of the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 76:268–275

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yvanes-Thomas M, Calmels P, Béthoux F et al (2002) Validity of the French-language version of the Quebec back pain disability scale in low back pain patients in France. Joint Bone Spine 69:397–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bendeddouche I, Rostom S, Bahiri R et al (2012) Translation, adaptation and validation of the Moroccan version of the Quebec back pain disability scale. Clin Rheumatol 31(6):943–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ (2001) A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Muller U, Roeder C, Dubs L et al (2004) Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: scale construction. Eur Spine J 13:314–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Paulik E, Belec B, Molnar R et al (2007) Applicability of the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization’s quality of life questionnaire in Hungary. Orv Hetil 148:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Methodology for linguistic validation (MAPI guideline). http://www.mapi-institute.com/linguistic-validation/methodology

  43. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mannion AF, Junge A, Taimela S et al (2001) Active therapy for chronic low back pain: part 3. Factors influencing self-rated disability and its change following therapy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:920–929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Grotle M, Vøllestad NK, Veierød MB et al (2004) Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain. Pain 112:343–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Janec Kopec for useful help in the conceptual definition of the Hungarian QDS and Ms. Zita Bognar for the careful study nursing. The research leading to these results received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7, 2007–2013) under grant agreement no. HEALTH-F2-2008-201626 and 269909.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Vas U. 17, Budapest, 1444, Hungary

    Tamás Valasek

  2. National Center for Spinal Disorders, Buda Health Center, Kiralyhago U. 1-3, Budapest, 1126, Hungary

    Peter Paul Varga, Zsolt Szövérfi & Aron Lazary

  3. Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Le Gros Clark Building, South Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3QX, UK

    Michelle Kümin

  4. Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Rd, Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX3 7HE, UK

    Jeremy Fairbank

Authors
  1. Tamás Valasek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Paul Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zsolt Szövérfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Kümin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeremy Fairbank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aron Lazary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aron Lazary.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valasek, T., Varga, P.P., Szövérfi, Z. et al. Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Eur Spine J 22, 1010–1018 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2645-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2645-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation