| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 物理治療暨輔助科技學系 === 96 === Introduction and purposes: Using valid and reliable outcome measures for low back pain (LBP) has become an important issue in current trend of evidence-based physical therapy. Developing new outcome measures for clinical use in Taiwan may lack international applications, while using outcome measures developed in another country possibly will not best fit native culture in Taiwan. To translate and vigorously test the psychometric properties of existing outcome measures could be a solution for finding sound evaluation tools and for cross-cultural comparisons among studies. Disability of patients with low back pain is influenced by pain and also by psychosocial factors. Fear avoidance behavior and beliefs about the potential effect of work and physical activity on pain have been shown to influence disability. Fear avoidance behavior and beliefs can be assessed with the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). FABQ has not been translated into Chinese for the assessment in population with low back pain. The purpose of this study was to translate and validate the Chinese version of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and to assess its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Subjects. A total of 91 patients (37 males and 54 females; mean age = 40.85±13.51yrs) with LBP participated in this study. Methods. The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire was translated using forward and backward translation procedures. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed in 32 patients with LBP by Cronbach’s α and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Construct validity was assessed with a factor analysis and with calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients in 91 patients with LBP. Responsiveness was assessed with the smallest real difference (SRD) derived from the standard error of measurement in 34 patients with LBP. Results. Test-retest reliabilities of the Chinese version of FABQ were good, with ICC values of 0.94, 0.87, 0.93 for the total scale, the physical activity subscale, and the work subscale respectively. Internal consistency was fair to good, with the Cronbach’s α of 0.87, 0.56, 0.90 for the total scale, the physical activity subscale, and the work subscale respectively. Factor analysis of the Chinese version of FABQ extracted 5 factors, accounting for 75.24% of the total variance. The Chinese version of FABQ correlated weakly but significantly with the pain scale and disability score. The smallest real difference is 2.49 for acute low back pain and 13.2 for chronic low back pain. Conclusions. The psychometric properties (test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity) of the Chinese version of the FABQ are acceptable and can be used in assessing Chinese-speaking patients with LBP and suitable for routine clinical use.
Key words: Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, cross-cultural adaptation, psychometric testing
|
|---|
