Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Iranian Center of Excellence in Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Geriatric Mental Health Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

10.22038/abjs.2024.76731.3546

Abstract

Objectives: The major emphasis of physical therapy in patient evaluation is the assessment of physical function, and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is one of the most commonly used instruments for this purpose. Therefore, the present study aims to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PSFS into Persian and test its psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Methods: The PSFS was translated from English to Persian and cross-culturally adapted in accordance with the study by Beaton et al.  Psychometric properties of 100 CLBP patients were assessed. Reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) was examined for 32 participants who completed the Persian version of the PSFS (PSFS-P) twice with one week interval. Construct validity was assessed against the Persian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-P) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS-P).
Results: The PSFS-P showed excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha=0.88, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC 3, 1] =0.95, 95% CI [0.87 to 0.98]). The construct validity analysis revealed a moderate negative correlation between PSFS-P and NPRS-P (r=-0.47) and a high negative correlation between PSFS-P and ODI-P (r=-0.61). The PSFS-P showed no floor and ceiling effects.
Conclusion: The PSFS-P has adequate psychometric properties and is applicable in both clinical settings and research involving the Iranian population with CLBP.
        Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ferguson SA, Marras WS, Burr DL, Woods S, Mendel E, Gupta P. Quantification of a meaningful change in low back functional impairment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2009; 34(19):2060-5. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b34764.
  2. Sharma S, Palanchoke J, Abbott JH. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Nepali translation of the Patient-specific functional scale. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018; 48(8):659-664. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7925.
  3. Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(22):2459-63. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181849dbe.
  4. Abbott JH, Schmitt JS. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale was valid for group-level change comparisons and between-group discrimination. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(6):681-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.002.
  5. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy canada. 1995; 47(4):258-63.
  6. Barten J, Pisters M, Huisman P, Takken T, Veenhof C. Measurement properties of patient-specific instruments measuring physical function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(6):590-601. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.005.
  7. Pathak A, Wilson R, Sharma S, et al. Measurement Properties of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale and Its Current Uses: An Updated Systematic Review of 57 Studies Using COSMIN Guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2022; 52(5):262-275. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10727.
  8. Nazari G, Bobos P, Lu S, Reischl S, Almeida PH, MacDermid JC. Psychometric Properties of the Patient-Specific Functional

 

        Scale in Patients with Low Back Pathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physiother Can. 2022; 74(1):6-14. doi: 10.3138/ptc-2020-0042.

  1. Lehtola V, Kaksonen A, Luomajoki H, Leinonen V, Gibbons S, Airaksinen O. Content validity and responsiveness of a Finnish version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. The European Journal of Physiotherapy .2013; 15(3):134-38.
  2. Rosengren J, Brodin N. Validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients treated surgically for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. J Hand Ther.2013; 26(1):53-60; quiz 61. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2012.10.007.
  3. Nakamaru K, Aizawa J, Koyama T, Nitta O. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with neck pain. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(12):2816-20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4236-z.
  4. Alnahdi AH, Murtada BA, Zawawi AT, Omar MT, Alsobayel HI. Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Arabic version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with lower extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Disabil Rehabil.2022; 44(15):4104-4110. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1880651.
  5. Yalcinkaya G, Kara B, Arda MN. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with chronic neck pain. Turk J Med Sci. 2020; 50(4):824-831. doi: 10.3906/sag-1905-91.
  6. Dahlan A, Mohd Yasin MD, Achmy ZI. Translation and validation of the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Health Scope. 2020; 3(1):71-77.
  7. Maughan EF, Lewis JS. Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(9):1484-94. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6.
  8. Pengel LH, Refshauge KM, Maher CG. Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2004; 29(8):879-83. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200404150-00011.
  9. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, Montazeri A, Mobini B. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(14):E454-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000222141.61424.f7.
  10. 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(24):3186-91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
  11. Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull. 2010:94:81-144. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldp052.
  12. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials.1989; 10(4):407-15. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
  13. Nunnally JC, eds. Psychometric Theory 3E. 3st ed. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-hill education; 1994.
  14. Kline P, eds. Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2st ed. Routledge; 2013.
  15. Kalantari R, Farahani AZ, Garosi E, Badeli H, Jamali J. Translation and psychometric properties of the Persian version of oxford non-technical skills 2 system: Assessment of surgical teams’ non-technical skills in orthopedic surgery wards. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2019; 7(2):173-181.
  16. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  17. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56(8):730-5. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00084-2.
  18. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(1):34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
  19. Beckerman H, Roebroeck M, Lankhorst G, Becher J, Bezemer PD, Verbeek A. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res.2001; 10(7):571-8. doi: 10.1023/a:1013138911638.
  20. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, eds. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. 1st ed. Cambridge university press; 2011.
  21. Sayyed Hosseinian S, Ghayyem Hassankhani G, Bagheri F, Alavi N, Shojaie B, Mousavian A. Validation of the Persian Version of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) Questionnaire. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018; 6(3):233-239.
  22. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21(4):651-7. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.
  23. Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, Van Vliet D, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42(1):30-42. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2012.3727.
  24. Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM, et al. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1997; 77(8):820-9. doi: 10.1093/ptj/77.8.820.
  25. Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, Wainner RS, Childs JD. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2012; 12(10):921-31. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.05.004.
  26. Nourbakhsh MR, Fearon FJ. The effect of oscillating-energy manual therapy on lateral epicondylitis: a randomized, placebo-control, double-blinded study. J Hand Ther. 2008; 21(1):4-13; quiz 14. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2007.09.005.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 13, Issue 1
January 2025
Pages 47-53

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 January 2024
  • Revise Date: 25 October 2024
  • Accept Date: 30 September 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics