Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Amharic version of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in people with low back pain in Ethiopia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cross-culturally translate, adapt, and validate Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in Amharic language in Ethiopia. The English version RMDQ was translated into Amharic and back-translated into English. An expert review committee reviewed the translations and created Amharic version of the RMDQ (RMDQ-Am). Pilot testing and cognitive debriefing of the RMDQ-Am were conducted with a sample of 20 individuals with LBP. The RMDQ-Am was administered to 240 individuals with LBP from three rehabilitation centers to determine its psychometric properties. Internal consistency of the tool was determined by Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability was determined by the Intraclass correlation coefficient. The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), Minimum Detectable Change (MDC), and the Bland Altman Limit of Agreement (LOA) was also determined. The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Bodily Pain and Physical Functioning subscales were used to assess convergent validity. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to determine the dimensionality of the tool. RMDQ-Am demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.88), excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91), SEM (1.64), MDC (3.55), and good LOA. There is a significant moderate correlation between RMDQ-Am and the Physical Functioning (Rho = −0.62, p < 0.01) and Bodily Pain (BP) (Rho = −0.41, p < 0.01) subscales of the SF-36. Exploratory Factor Analysis demonstrates that the Amharic version of RMDQ is a primary one and secondary four-factor model [The Kaiser Meyer Olkin = 0.877, X2 (df) =1413.278/190, p < 0.001]. RMDQ-Am is a reliable and valid tool that can be used in both clinical practice and research with the Ethiopian LBP population.IMPLICATION FOR REHABILITATIONDespite LBP being a concern in Ethiopia, the magnitude of disability related to this phenomenon is not studied in the country, mainly due to the absence of validated LBP specific patient-reported outcome measures such as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).The RMDQ was successfully translated, adapted, and validated into the Amharic language and the Ethiopian context (RMDQ-Am).The RMDQ-Am is a reliable outcome measure among the Ethiopian population with LBP, as demonstrated by the good internal consistency (α = 0.88) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91).There is a moderate negative correlation between the RMDQ-Am and the Physical Functioning (Rho = −0.62, p < 0.01) and Bodily Pain (Rho = −0.41, p < 0.01) subscales of the SF-36.The RMDQ-Am can be used in clinical and research settings to measure LBP-related disability and its impact among individuals living with LBP in Ethiopia. Despite LBP being a concern in Ethiopia, the magnitude of disability related to this phenomenon is not studied in the country, mainly due to the absence of validated LBP specific patient-reported outcome measures such as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The RMDQ was successfully translated, adapted, and validated into the Amharic language and the Ethiopian context (RMDQ-Am). The RMDQ-Am is a reliable outcome measure among the Ethiopian population with LBP, as demonstrated by the good internal consistency (α = 0.88) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91). There is a moderate negative correlation between the RMDQ-Am and the Physical Functioning (Rho = −0.62, p < 0.01) and Bodily Pain (Rho = −0.41, p < 0.01) subscales of the SF-36. The RMDQ-Am can be used in clinical and research settings to measure LBP-related disability and its impact among individuals living with LBP in Ethiopia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».