The Back Belief Questionnaire is efficient to assess false beliefs and related fear in low back pain populations: A transcultural adaptation and validation study
According to the fear avoidance model, beliefs and thoughts can modify the outcome of patient with low back pain. The Back Belief Questionnaire (BBQ)-a 14 items scale-assesses these consequences of low back pain.
To test the psychometric properties of the French version of the BBQ.
The BBQ was translated using the forward-backward translation process. Throughout three repeated evaluation time points (D1, D7 and D30), various aspects of validity were analysed: acceptability, quality of items, unidimentionality, internal consistency, temporal stability (between D1 and D7), responsiveness (between D7 and D30), and construct validity comparing it to other validated scales.
One hundred and thirty-one patients were enrolled and 128 were analyzed. The acceptability and the quality of the items were excellent. The scale was unidimensional and reliable (internal consistency: Cronbach's α = 0.8). The responsiveness was moderate but in line with other scores. The BBQ was, as expected, convergent with day-to-day activities and fear avoidance (FABQ and Tampa), disability (Quebec and Dallas scores), or anxiety and depression (HAD); and not correlated with pain. Best correlations were found with Tampa and FABQ. The temporal stability (test-retest reliability) was poor. However, similar changes were observed in near conceptual score (FABQ), which confirmed that clinical status may have not been stable and suggesting sensitivity to early changes for BBQ.
The BBQ showed good psychometric properties to assess false beliefs and related fear in French or English LBP populations and can be used either for evaluation in international trials or as a part of self-care training.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 April 2020.
All research outputs
#14,369,953
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#117,997
of 196,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,649
of 439,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,930
of 3,451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 439,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
