Fremantle back awareness questionnaire in chronic low back pain (Frebaq-I): Translation and validation in the Indian Population

Parnandi Rao; Mantu Jain; Apurba Barman; Sumit Bansal; Rabi Sahu; Neha Singh

doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_359_20

Asian Journal of Neurosurgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2021; 16(01): 113-118
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_359_20

Original Article

Fremantle back awareness questionnaire in chronic low back pain (Frebaq-I): Translation and validation in the Indian Population

Autor*innen

Parnandi Rao

Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Mantu Jain

¹Department of Orthopedics, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Apurba Barman

²Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Sumit Bansal

³Department of Neurosurgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Rabi Sahu

³Department of Neurosurgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Neha Singh

Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Abstract

Background: The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) has been found to possess adequate psychometric properties in low back pain (LBP) patients worldwide. The aim of this study was to translate the questionnaire into a classical Indian language (Odiya) and validate in the Indian population (FreBAQ-I). Materials and Methods: The English edition of the FreBAQ was transformed into Indian classical language (Odiya). One hundred adult patients with chronic LBP were recruited for psychometric evaluation using Rasch analysis. Demographic parameters, clinical characteristics like pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Beck's depression inventory were assessed along with responses to the study questionnaire. Results: The FreBAQ-I correlated well with intensity of pain (r = −0.19, P = 0.04), duration of the LBP (r = 0.35, P < 0.001), depression score (r = 0.25, P = 0.012), but not statitistically with disability (r = 0.06, P = 0.49). The fit statistics was neither excessively positive nor negative, and the average agreeability measure of the study participants progressed as presumed across the different categories. Internal consistency of the FreBAQ-I version was found to be good with a person reliability of 0.54 and Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. Conclusions: Patients with greater disturbed body perception are addressed adequately by the questionnaire. All nine items are essential and adequate, which makes the survey complete, although item 2 was found to be endorsed more often. Overall, the FreBAQ-I has suitable psychometric properties in Indian populations with chronic LBP.

Key-words:

Altered perception - chronic - Indian - low back pain - modified Fremantle questionnaire

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Moseley GL. I can't find it! distorted body image and tactile dysfunction in patients with chronic back pain. Pain 2008;140:239-43.
2 Moseley GL, Gallagher L, Gallace A. Neglect-like tactile dysfunction in chronic back pain. Neurology 2012;79:327-32.
3 Furr RM, Bacharach VR. Psychometrics: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2013.
4 Wand BM, James M, Abbaszadeh S, George PJ, Formby PM, Smith AJ, et al. Assessing self-perception in patients with chronic low back pain: Development of a back-specific body-perception questionnaire. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2014;27:463-73.
5 Wand BM, Catley MJ, Rabey MI, O'Sullivan PB, O'Connell NE, Smith AJ. Disrupted self-perception in people with chronic low back pain. Further evaluation of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire. J Pain 2016;17:1001-12.
6 Nishigami T, Mibu A, Tanaka K, Yamashita Y, Shimizu ME, Wand BM, et al. Validation of the japanese version of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire in patients with low back pain. Pain Pract 2018;18:170-9.
7 Fairbank JC. Oswestry disability index. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20:239-41.
8 Jackson-Koku G. Beck depression inventory. Occup Med (Lond) 2016;66:174-5.
9 Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;7:328.
10 Boone WJ. Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE Life Sci Educ 2016;15:rm4.
11 Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1358-62.
12 Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;8:370.
13 Moreton BJ, Walsh DA, Turner KV, Lincoln NB. Rasch analysis of the chronic pain acceptance questionnaire revised in people with knee osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med 2015;47:655-61.
14 Ramp M, Khan F, Misajon RA, Pallant JF. Rasch analysis of the multiple sclerosis impact scale MSIS-29. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:58.
15 Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 2004;64:391-418.
16 Nunnaly J. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
17 Rasche G. Critical eigenvalue sizes in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Meas Trans 2005;19:1012.
18 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22:719-48.
19 Janssens L, Goossens N, Wand BM, Pijnenburg M, Thys T, Brumagne S. The development of the dutch version of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017;32:84-91.
20 Moore JE. Chronic low back pain and psychosocial issues. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2010;21:801-15.
21 Rasch G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1966;19:49-57.
22 Leung YY, Png ME, Conaghan P, Tennant A. A systematic literature review on the application of Rasch analysis in musculoskeletal disease - A special interest group report of OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol 2014;41:159-64.
23 Erhart M, Hagquist C, Auquier P, Rajmil L, Power M, Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. A comparison of rasch item-fit and Cronbach's alpha item reduction analysis for the development of a quality of life scale for children and adolescents. Child Care Health Dev 2010;36:473-84.