A review of culturally adapted versions of the Oswestry Disability Index: the adaptation process, construct validity, test–retest reliability and internal consistency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a self-report-based outcome measure used to quantify the extent of disability related to low back pain (LBP), a substantial contributor to workplace absenteeism. The ODI tool has been adapted for use by patients in several non-English speaking nations. It is unclear, however, if these adapted versions of the ODI are as credible as the original ODI developed for English-speaking nations. The objective of this study was to conduct a review of the literature to identify culturally adapted versions of the ODI and to report on the adaptation process, construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency of these ODIs. Following a pragmatic review process, data were extracted from each study with regard to these four outcomes. While most studies applied adaptation processes in accordance with best-practice guidelines, there were some deviations. However, all studies reported high-quality psychometric properties: group mean construct validity was 0.734 ± 0.094 (indicated via a correlation coefficient), test-retest reliability was 0.937 ± 0.032 (indicated via an intraclass correlation coefficient) and internal consistency was 0.876 ± 0.047 (indicated via Cronbach's alpha). Researchers can be confident when using any of these culturally adapted ODIs, or when comparing and contrasting results between cultures where these versions were employed. Implications for Rehabilitation Low back pain is the second leading cause of disability in the world, behind only cancer. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has been developed as a self-report outcome measure of low back pain for administration to patients. An understanding of the various cross-cultural adaptations of the ODI is important for more concerted multi-national research efforts. This review examines 16 cross-cultural adaptations of the ODI and should inform the work of health care and rehabilitation professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".