Westerik-Verschuuren E1, Waal van der M2, Mens J3, Coppieters M2,4, Ostelo R5, Terwee C6, Pool-Goudzwaard A1,2
1SOMT Institute for Master Education in Musculoskeletal Therapies, Pelvic Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, Netherlands, 2Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine & Physical Therapy, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 4Griffith University, School of Allied Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Gold Coast, Australia, 5Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Earth- and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 6Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Background: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) and disability are common during and after pregnancy. Often low back pain disability scales are used to objectify disability, despite different complaints are reported by PGP-patients. The Norwegian version of the 'Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire' (PGQ) is valid and reliable but not available in Dutch. Though two factors have been described in the original Norwegian version, a factor analysis of the PGQ was not carried out.
Purpose: The aim of this study was
(1) to translate, cross-cultural adapt the PGQ in Dutch,
(2) to test its face-validity
(3) to assess the construct validity with LBP disability questionnaires and
(4) to examine the factor structure with a confirmative factor analysis.
Methods: After translation conform Beaton rules the Dutch PGQ was adopted. 109 pregnant and postpartum PGP patients (>18-yrs), filled in the Dutch PGQ, 88 also filled in the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a pain-numeric-rating scale (NRS-pain) and performed an Active Straight Leg Raising Test (ASLR). Internal consistency was calculated. Agreement and correlation between the PGQ and QBPDS, ODI, NRS-pain and ASLR were calculated using Bland and Altman-method and Spearman rank correlations. A confirmative analysis was carried out to examine the factor structure. A priori it was hypothesizes that in the Dutch PGQ, like in the Norwegian version, two factors could be identified.
Results: The Dutch PGQ has high internal consistency according to Cronbach's alpha (0.895). The PGQ is highly correlated with QBPDS and ODI sum score (Spearmen's-Rho,resp.0.85, 0.74), and low with ASLR (0.32).
However confirmative factor analysis demonstrated that no factor could be identified between none of the questions. All separate questions measure a different construct.
Conclusion(s): Despite a high internal consistency and high correlations with QBPDS and ODI, the PGQ should not be used anymore to assess disability in PGP patients. We advise to conduct a confirmative analysis from the Norwegian version before the PGQ will be translated in other languages.
Implications: In the Netherlands there is still a need for a suitable questionnaire to assess disability in women with PGP. It is questionable whether the original Norwegian version should be translated till a confimative analysis had been conducted.
Keywords: Pelvic girdle pain, questionnaire, factor analysis
Funding acknowledgements: We thank all Dutch pelvic physiotherapists who convinced their PGP patients to participate
Purpose: The aim of this study was
(1) to translate, cross-cultural adapt the PGQ in Dutch,
(2) to test its face-validity
(3) to assess the construct validity with LBP disability questionnaires and
(4) to examine the factor structure with a confirmative factor analysis.
Methods: After translation conform Beaton rules the Dutch PGQ was adopted. 109 pregnant and postpartum PGP patients (>18-yrs), filled in the Dutch PGQ, 88 also filled in the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a pain-numeric-rating scale (NRS-pain) and performed an Active Straight Leg Raising Test (ASLR). Internal consistency was calculated. Agreement and correlation between the PGQ and QBPDS, ODI, NRS-pain and ASLR were calculated using Bland and Altman-method and Spearman rank correlations. A confirmative analysis was carried out to examine the factor structure. A priori it was hypothesizes that in the Dutch PGQ, like in the Norwegian version, two factors could be identified.
Results: The Dutch PGQ has high internal consistency according to Cronbach's alpha (0.895). The PGQ is highly correlated with QBPDS and ODI sum score (Spearmen's-Rho,resp.0.85, 0.74), and low with ASLR (0.32).
However confirmative factor analysis demonstrated that no factor could be identified between none of the questions. All separate questions measure a different construct.
Conclusion(s): Despite a high internal consistency and high correlations with QBPDS and ODI, the PGQ should not be used anymore to assess disability in PGP patients. We advise to conduct a confirmative analysis from the Norwegian version before the PGQ will be translated in other languages.
Implications: In the Netherlands there is still a need for a suitable questionnaire to assess disability in women with PGP. It is questionable whether the original Norwegian version should be translated till a confimative analysis had been conducted.
Keywords: Pelvic girdle pain, questionnaire, factor analysis
Funding acknowledgements: We thank all Dutch pelvic physiotherapists who convinced their PGP patients to participate
Topic: Women's & men's pelvic health; Disability & rehabilitation; Musculoskeletal
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: Zuyderland and Hogeschool Zuyd
Ethics committee: METC-Z
Reason not required: The Advisory Committee of the Medical Ethics Commission of Zuyderland and Hogeschool Zuyd (METC Z) assessed the study and decided it was usual care and non-interventional. Therefore no medical ethical approval was needed.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
