Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the neck pain

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

Abstract

Purpose

The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a short and multidimensional scale covering all domains recommended to be included in outcome measures for patients with neck pain. The purpose of the present study was to translate and cross culturally adapt the COMI into Turkish and to test its reliability and validity in patients with neck pain.

Methods

One hundred and six patients with a complaint of chronic neck pain (> 3 months) were enrolled in the present study. Participants completed a questionnaire booklet containing the COMI-neck, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The validation of the COMI included the assessment of its construct validity and reliability.

Results

Cronbach’s alpha value of the questionnaire was found to be 0.774 indicating a high internal consistency. Intraclass correlation coefficient values for test–retest reliability were found to be in the range of 0.817–0.986, which indicates a sufficient level of test–retest reliability. Pearson’s correlation coefficient values of the COMI with SF-36, NDI, NPDS, and NRS ranged between 0.417 and 0.700, indicating a good correlation.

Conclusion

Considering the analyses, it was concluded that the Turkish version of the COMI is a valid and reliable scale for chronic neck pain patients.

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

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. Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3100–3103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler H-R, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS Questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine 29:2851–2855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 21:520

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Baird AC, Darden BV II (1999) Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale: item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(13):1290–1294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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) 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 31:1372–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 14:1014–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis J-C, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry Spine Tango: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine 29:1923–1930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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–E434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miekisiak G, Banach M, Kiwic G, Kubaszewski L, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Çetin E, Çelik EC, Acaroğlu E, Berk H (2018) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 27(1):93–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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) 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Telci EA, Karaduman A, Yakut Y, Aras B, Simsek IE, Yagli N (2009) The cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of neck disability index in patients with neck pain: a Turkish version study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(16):1725–1735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bicer A, Yazici A, Camdeviren H, Erdogan C (2004) Assessment of pain and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: reliability and construct validity of the Turkish version of the neck pain and disability scale. Disabil Rehabil 26(16):959–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huskinson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinar R (2005) Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res 14(1):259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19(1):231–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 60:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gunaydin G, Citaker S, Meray J, Cobanoglu G, Gunaydin OE, Hazar Kanik Z (2016) Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(21):E1292–E1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J (2015) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey

    Gul Oznur Karabicak & Gurkan Gunaydin

  2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Gazi University, Emniyet Mahallesi, Muammer Yasar Bostanci Cad. No:16, 06500, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Zeynep Hazar Kanik & Seyit Citaker

  3. Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Zeynep Hazar Kanik

  4. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey

    Omer Osman Pala

Authors
  1. Gul Oznur Karabicak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeynep Hazar Kanik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gurkan Gunaydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer Osman Pala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seyit Citaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Hazar Kanik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

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 (PDF 78 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 132 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karabicak, G.O., Hazar Kanik, Z., Gunaydin, G. et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the neck pain. Eur Spine J 29, 186–193 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06169-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06169-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation