Santos JJA1,2, Nascimento F2, Santos MCA3, Andrade FL1, Kremer AP1, Feldman K1
1Universidade Paranaense - UNIPAR, Physical Therapy, Toledo, Brazil, 2Reab Plus Fisioterapia, Physical Therapy, Toledo, Brazil, 3Universidade do Oeste Paulista - UNOESTE, Physical Therapy, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
Background: Back pain or lumbago is a painful condition that can affect up to 65% of people per year and it is estimated that up to 84% of people will experience this pain at some point in life. The Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) was designed to evaluate the functional state of individuals experiencing back pain. The scale consists of twelve items, covering functional aspects in daily life activities of these individuals. The final score is calculated by the sum of the responses of each item, whose value varies from 0 to 5, obtaining a total result of 0 to 60 points. It does not have a validated version in Portuguese spoken in Brazil.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally translate and adapt the BPFS into Brazilian Portuguese and examine its validity and reliability.
Methods: The validation process was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization protocol, covering translation (made by one English teacher and two English fluent researchers), back translation (by three bilingual physical therapists), semantic equivalence, evaluation of specialists from previous stages, pre-test of the instrument and final version. The pre-test was performed with 15 participants with low back pain (8 female and 7 male) and all participants demonstrated and affirmed to have understood all the questions and that they were simple, objective and easy to understand.The final version was applied in a sample of 90 individuals with low back pain and the data obtained were subjected to descriptive statistical treatment, factorial analysis, evaluation of internal consistency and the construct´s validity between BPFS and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) using Spearman´s correlation coefficient.
Results: The instrument was adapted into Portuguese used in Brazil using terms to bring the language closer to everyday expressions. The final version presented similar results to the original version demonstrated by the factorial analysis where the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test presented a value of 0.925, the Bartlett sphericity test, based on the statistical distribution of Chi-square, presented a result of 2441.009 (p 0.001), which allows us to reject the null hypothesis that the analyzed data do not have correlation among them, it showed very high internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.990) and strong correlation with instruments validated for the Portuguese language (BPFS X QBPDS:-0.867 and BPFS X RMDQ: -0.739; p 0.001).
Conclusion(s): The Brazilian version of BPFS proved to be easy to apply and understand, presented high internal consistency and similar validity of construct to the original instrument.
Implications: This Brazilian Portuguese version of the BPFS will improve the assessment of back pain patients and allow standardization of data achievement in a clinical and research environment by Brazilian Portuguese speaking professionals.
Keywords: Back Pain, Funcionality, Scale
Funding acknowledgements: This study was supported by Scientific Initiation Scholarship Program of the Universidade Paranaense (UNIPAR).
Purpose: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally translate and adapt the BPFS into Brazilian Portuguese and examine its validity and reliability.
Methods: The validation process was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization protocol, covering translation (made by one English teacher and two English fluent researchers), back translation (by three bilingual physical therapists), semantic equivalence, evaluation of specialists from previous stages, pre-test of the instrument and final version. The pre-test was performed with 15 participants with low back pain (8 female and 7 male) and all participants demonstrated and affirmed to have understood all the questions and that they were simple, objective and easy to understand.The final version was applied in a sample of 90 individuals with low back pain and the data obtained were subjected to descriptive statistical treatment, factorial analysis, evaluation of internal consistency and the construct´s validity between BPFS and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) using Spearman´s correlation coefficient.
Results: The instrument was adapted into Portuguese used in Brazil using terms to bring the language closer to everyday expressions. The final version presented similar results to the original version demonstrated by the factorial analysis where the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test presented a value of 0.925, the Bartlett sphericity test, based on the statistical distribution of Chi-square, presented a result of 2441.009 (p 0.001), which allows us to reject the null hypothesis that the analyzed data do not have correlation among them, it showed very high internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.990) and strong correlation with instruments validated for the Portuguese language (BPFS X QBPDS:-0.867 and BPFS X RMDQ: -0.739; p 0.001).
Conclusion(s): The Brazilian version of BPFS proved to be easy to apply and understand, presented high internal consistency and similar validity of construct to the original instrument.
Implications: This Brazilian Portuguese version of the BPFS will improve the assessment of back pain patients and allow standardization of data achievement in a clinical and research environment by Brazilian Portuguese speaking professionals.
Keywords: Back Pain, Funcionality, Scale
Funding acknowledgements: This study was supported by Scientific Initiation Scholarship Program of the Universidade Paranaense (UNIPAR).
Topic: Outcome measurement; Musculoskeletal: spine; Orthopaedics
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Universidade Paranaense - UNIPAR
Ethics committee: Human Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: 1698082
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
