Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability, Internal Consistency and Validation of the Spinal Function Sort (SFS) for French- and German-Speaking Patients with Back Complaints

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction Functional subjective evaluation through questionnaire is fundamental, but not often realized in patients with back complaints, lacking validated tools. The Spinal Function Sort (SFS) was only validated in English. We aimed to translate, adapt and validate the French (SFS-F) and German (SFS-G) versions of the SFS. Methods Three hundred and forty-four patients, experiencing various back complaints, were recruited in a French (n = 87) and a German-speaking (n = 257) center. Construct validity was estimated via correlations with SF-36 physical and mental scales, pain intensity and hospital anxiety and depression scales (HADS). Scale homogeneities were assessed by Cronbach’s α. Test–retest reliability was assessed on 65 additional patients using intraclass correlation (IC). Results For the French and German translations, respectively, α were 0.98 and 0.98; IC 0.98 (95% CI: [0.97; 1.00]) and 0.94 (0.90; 0.98). Correlations with physical functioning were 0.63 (0.48; 0.74) and 0.67 (0.59; 0.73); with physical summary 0.60 (0.44; 0.72) and 0.52 (0.43; 0.61); with pain −0.33 (−0.51; −0.13) and −0.51 (−0.60; −0.42); with mental health −0.08 (−0.29; 0.14) and 0.25 (0.13; 0.36); with mental summary 0.01 (−0.21; 0.23) and 0.28 (0.16; 0.39); with depression −0.26 (−0.45; −0.05) and −0.42 (−0.52; −0.32); with anxiety −0.17 (−0.37; −0.04) and −0.45 (−0.54; −0.35). Conclusions Reliability was excellent for both languages. Convergent validity was good with SF-36 physical scales, moderate with VAS pain. Divergent validity was low with SF-36 mental scales in both translated versions and with HADS for the SFS-F (moderate in SFS-G). Both versions seem to be valid and reliable for evaluating perceived functional capacity in patients with back complaints.

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. Genovese E, Galper JS. Guide to the evaluation of functional ability: how to request, interpret, and apply functional capacity evaluations. 1st ed. American Medical Association; 2009.

  2. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reneman MF, Jorritsma W, Schellekens JM, Goeken LN. Concurrent validity of questionnaire and performance-based disability measurements in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12:119–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Holden G. The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Soc Work Health Care. 1991;16:53–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lackner JM, Carosella AM. The relative influence of perceived pain control, anxiety, and functional self efficacy on spinal function among patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:2254–60.; Discussion 60–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee CE, Simmonds MJ, Novy DM, Jones S. Self-reports and clinician-measured physical function among patients with low back pain: a comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:227–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Boonstra AM, Dijkstra PU, Versteegen GJ, Geertzen JH, et al. Relationship between psychological factors and performance-based and self-reported disability in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1448–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Smeets RJ, van Geel AC, Kester AD, Knottnerus JA. Physical capacity tasks in chronic low back pain: what is the contributing role of cardiovascular capacity, pain and psychological factors? Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:577–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1137–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23:2003–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez-Calvo J, Gonzalez VM, Lorig K. Cultural diversity issues in the development of valid and reliable measures of health status. Arthritis Care Res. 1997;10:448–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Matheson LN. History, design characteristics, and uses of the pictorial activity and task sorts. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14:175–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer J, Mooney V, Matheson L, Leggett S, Verna J, Balourdas G, et al. Reliability and validity of a new computer-administered pictorial activity and task sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:203–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matheson LN, Matheson ML. Spinal function sort. Rating of perceived capacity. Test booklet and examiners manual. Performance Assessment and Capacity Testing PACT; 1989/1991.

  16. Henchoz Y, de Goumoens P, So AK, Paillex R. Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus outpatient physiotherapy for non specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010;140:131–3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Innes E, Hardwick M. Actual versus perceived lifting ability in healthy young men (18–25 years). Work. 2010;36:157–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kool JP, Oesch PR, Bachmann S, Knuesel O, Dierkes JG, Russo M, et al. Increasing days at work using function-centered rehabilitation in nonacute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:857–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson RC, Kishino N, Matheson L, Woods S, Hoffman K, Unterberg J, et al. Improvement in postoperative and nonoperative spinal patients on a self-report measure of disability: the spinal function sort (SFS). J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13:107–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sufka A, Hauger B, Trenary M, Bishop B, Hagen A, Lozon R, et al. Centralization of low back pain and perceived functional outcome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:205–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Oliveri M. Functional capacity evaluation. In: Gobelet C, Franchignoni F, editors. Vocational rehabilitation. Paris: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gibson L, Strong J. Assessment of psychosocial factors in functional capacity evaluation of clients with chronic back pain. Br J Occup Ther. 1998;61:399–404.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Matheson LN, Matheson ML, Grant J. Development of a measure of perceived functional ability. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3:15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oesch PR, Hilfiker R, Kool JP, Bachmann S, Hagen KB. Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain? Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1527–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. U.S. Department of Labor. The revised handbook for analyzing jobs. 4th ed. Indianapolis: JIST Works, inc.; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. 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. 2005;8:94–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52:69–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31:165–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bent NP, Wright CC, Rushton AB, Batt ME. Selecting outcome measures in sports medicine: a guide for practitioners using the example of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43:1006–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Osburn HG. Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychol Methods. 2000;5:343–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Health; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20:337–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. StataCorp LP, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX 77845, USA

  39. Dersh J, Gatchel RJ, Mayer T, Polatin P, Temple OR. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in patients with chronic disabling occupational spinal disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:1156–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Burrus C, Ballabeni P, Deriaz O, Gobelet C, Luthi F. Predictors of nonresponse in a questionnaire-based outcome study of vocational rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1499–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:90–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Clinique romande de réadaptation and the Rehaklinik Bellikon. The authors thank Fabienne Reynard, Dominique Buchard, Mike Short, Trevor Mc Intosh, Amisha Gudibanda, Marilyn Murbach, Andrea Müller-Hildebrand, Julia Koelle, and Peter Erhart for their translation and back-translation work, and all patients for their participation. We also thank the physiotherapists for their help in recruiting patients for this study, and Peter Erhart for his essential support with data storage, involvement in the translation process and his role as guarantor of the study at the Rehaklinik Bellikon. S. Borloz, M. A. Trippolini, O. Deriaz, F. Luthi, were responsible for the design of the study. S. Borloz and M. A. Trippolini were responsible for general coordination and conducting the study at both rehabilitation centres. P. Ballabeni provided the statistical analysis. F. Luthi and O. Deriaz, are the guarantors. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the data, helped write the manuscript, and read and approved the final version of the manuscript. The clinics Clinique Romande de Réadaptation and Rehaklinik Bellikon are financially supported by the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA). No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de l’appareil locomoteur, Clinique Romande de réadaptation SUVA Care, Sion, Switzerland

    S. Borloz & F. Luthi

  2. Department of Work Rehabilitation, Rehaklinik Bellikon, SUVA Care, Bellikon, Switzerland

    M. A. Trippolini

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands

    M. A. Trippolini

  4. Département de l’appareil locomoteur, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    F. Luthi

  5. Institut de recherche en réadaptation and Service de recherche médicale, Clinique Romande de réadaptation SUVA Care, Sion, Switzerland

    P. Ballabeni, F. Luthi & O. Deriaz

  6. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    P. Ballabeni

Authors
  1. S. Borloz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Trippolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Ballabeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Luthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O. Deriaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Borloz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 111 kb) Picture 1 Example of drawing

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borloz, S., Trippolini, M.A., Ballabeni, P. et al. Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability, Internal Consistency and Validation of the Spinal Function Sort (SFS) for French- and German-Speaking Patients with Back Complaints. J Occup Rehabil 22, 387–393 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9356-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9356-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation