Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Amharic version of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in people with low back pain in Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".