| Title |
Psychometric validation of the cross-culturally adapted traditional Chinese version of the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5576-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Prudence Wing Hang Cheung, Carlos King Ho Wong, Jason Pui Yin Cheung |
| Abstract |
To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) into traditional Chinese for their use in patients experiencing low back pain (LBP). This was a prospective questionnaire translation and psychometric validation of the BBQ and FABQ in Chinese patients with back pain. Patients also completed the Traditional Chinese (Hong Kong) versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Short Form-12 version 2 (SF-12v2) questionnaires and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for LBP. Construct validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation test against the subscales and domains with similar constructs. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α). Sensitivity was determined by known-group comparisons. A total of 100 patients were recruited. Both BBQ (α = 0.810) and FABQ (α = 0.859) demonstrated excellent overall internal consistency. BBQ scores significantly correlated with ODI scores, VAS-LBP and all domains of SF-12v2 (p < 0.01-0.05), whereas only FABQ Work subscale correlated with ODI scores (p < 0.01) and VAS-LBP (p < 0.05). Both FABQ subscales correlated with only specific domains of SF-12v2 (p < 0.01-0.05). FABQ-W was sensitive to difference between patients with acute versus chronic back pain. Both the adapted BBQ and FABQ (Traditional Chinese-Hong Kong) were demonstrated to have satisfactory psychometric properties, with adequate internal consistencies, construct validity and sensitivity to certain clinical parameters. Our findings were based on a clinically relevant patient group and provides insight into patients' own perception of back pain which may often be different from that of surgeons. This is a platform for future cross-cultural comparisons. 2. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 23% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,544
of 328,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#33
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.