These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Psychometric validation of the cross-culturally adapted traditional Chinese version of the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ).
    Author: Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Cheung JPY.
    Journal: Eur Spine J; 2018 Aug; 27(8):1724-1733. PubMed ID: 29610990.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) into traditional Chinese for their use in patients experiencing low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a prospective questionnaire translation and psychometric validation of the BBQ and FABQ in Chinese patients with back pain. Patients also completed the Traditional Chinese (Hong Kong) versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Short Form-12 version 2 (SF-12v2) questionnaires and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for LBP. Construct validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation test against the subscales and domains with similar constructs. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α). Sensitivity was determined by known-group comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were recruited. Both BBQ (α = 0.810) and FABQ (α = 0.859) demonstrated excellent overall internal consistency. BBQ scores significantly correlated with ODI scores, VAS-LBP and all domains of SF-12v2 (p < 0.01-0.05), whereas only FABQ Work subscale correlated with ODI scores (p < 0.01) and VAS-LBP (p < 0.05). Both FABQ subscales correlated with only specific domains of SF-12v2 (p < 0.01-0.05). FABQ-W was sensitive to difference between patients with acute versus chronic back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Both the adapted BBQ and FABQ (Traditional Chinese-Hong Kong) were demonstrated to have satisfactory psychometric properties, with adequate internal consistencies, construct validity and sensitivity to certain clinical parameters. Our findings were based on a clinically relevant patient group and provides insight into patients' own perception of back pain which may often be different from that of surgeons. This is a platform for future cross-cultural comparisons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]