| Objective: To develop the Chinese version of Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire(CRMDQ) and test it s reliability, validity, and responsiveness for assessing disabilities in Chinese-speaking patients with low back pain.Methods: (1)Translation and back-translation of RMDQ: First the English version of Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire(RMDQ) was translated into Chinese by a back pain specialist and an English professor then back translated into English by another two ones. The discrepancy was removed by the two specialists and the two professors between those manuscripts. The primary Chinese version of RMDQ was revised untile it was equivalent to the original one. (2)Pretest: 30 outpatients (sample A) with low back pain were enrolled in the pretest. The manuscript was revised again according to the investigation results.(3)To assess the face validity. (4)To assess the content validity. (5)To test the CRMDQ questionnaire: First the general information of those patients participated in the test were investigated. 78 inpatients (sample B) with low back pain were enrolled in the test. All the investigators was assessed with CRMDQ, CODI and VAS. The assessment was repeated with an interval of two days without any treatments. Then another 327 inpatients were tested on their first visit with CRMDQ, CODI and VAS and 308 cases on their second visit were repeated with an interval of 7 to 14 days (average 8. 52 days) without any treatments. Among them 216 cases(Sample C) reported no clinical changes, 58 cases (Sample D) got worse and 34 cases (Sample E) improved in symptom since their fist assessment. The score were recorded and theintraclass correlation coefficient, Cronbach alpha coefficient and Spearman rank-order coefficient were used to analyze the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the CRMDQ.Results: (1) The results of pretest seems satisfying. (2) The CRMDQ has good face validity and content validity. (3) Reliability test: The ICC of CRMDQ, CODI, VAS were 0. 945, 0.930, 0. 901 respectively in sample B and 0.957, 0.943, 0.936 respectively in sample C(P<0. 01). The cronbach alpha coefficient of CRMDQ reached 0.885(0.875-0.884) on the first time and 0.887(0.877-0.883) on the second time in sample B while in sample C it reached 0.884(0.876-0.884) on the first time and 0.886(0.879-0.884) on the second time. The cronbach alpha coefficient of CODI reached 0.834 (0.809-0.868) on the first time and 0.835 (0.810-0.861) on the second time in sample B while in sample C it reached 0.829 (0.808-0.859) on the first time and 0. 832 (0. 807-0. 864) on the second time. (4) Validation test: ?The construct validity was quite well, ?cross-sectional construct validation: In sample B, the r CRMDQ-CODI and r CRMDQ-VAS were 0. 386, 0. 478 respectively on the first time while they were 0.392,0.481 respectively on the second time. In sample C, the r CRMDQ-CODI and r CRMDQ-VAS were 0. 356, 0. 418 respectively on the first time while they were 0. 374, 0. 421 respectively on the second time. ?Longitudinal-sectional construct validation: In sample D, the r CRMDQ,-2-CODI,-2 was -0. 361 and r CRMDQ^-VAS,-* was -0. 416; In sample E, the r CRMDQ^-CODI^ was 0. 316 and r CRMDQ^-VAS^ was 0.384. (5)Responsiveness: The SRM of CRMDQ> CODI, VAS was -0.807, -0.587, -0.510 in sample D and was 0.717, 0.437, 0.465 in sample E respectively.Conclusions: The test results of CRMDQ have good reliability, validity and responsiveness. It is equivalent to the original English version of RMDQ and can be used to assess the disabilities in Chinese-speaking... |
PDF Full Text Request