The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain

ŞEKERÖZ, SERBAY; Özden, Fatih; Aslan Telci, Emine; AKKAYA, NURAY

doi:10.55730/1300-0144.5622

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain

Fatih ÖZDEN, (Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu, Yaşlı Bakımı Anabilim Dalı, Muğla, Türkiye)

Emine ASLAN TELCİ, (Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Fakültesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye)

Serbay ŞEKERÖZ, (Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Fakültesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye)

Nuray AKKAYA (Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye)

Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences

5 2

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 53 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 610 - 618 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.55730/1300-0144.5622 İndeks Tarihi: 12-06-2023

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain

Öz:

Background/aim: The self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (S-ROM-Neck) is the subjective cervical region range of motion (S-ROM) assessment scale. The study aimed to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the S-ROM-Neck in patients with chronic neck pain. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a total of 60 chronic neck pain patients in the Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Clinic of Pamukkale University Hospital between January and August 2021. The mean age of the individuals was 34.1 ± 9.9 years. Patients were assessed with S-ROM-Neck twice to prove the test-retest reliability. In addition, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and bubble inclinometer measurement were used to analyze the construct validity of S-ROM-Neck. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients of the S-ROM-Neck were higher than 0.80 (ICC > 80, CI: 0.90–98). The internal consistency of the S-ROM-Neck total score was within the acceptable limits (α = 0.754). Construct validity was high regarding the correlation analysis (r > 0.05, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Turkish S-ROM-Neck is a valid and reliable tool to assess the S-ROM of individuals with chronic neck pain.

Anahtar Kelime: Neck Pain patient-reported outcome measures range of motion self-evaluation

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Côté P, Santaguida PL, Gross A et al. Use of Outcome Measures in Managing Neck Pain: An International Multidisciplinary Survey. The Open Orthopaedics Journal 2013;7(4):506-520. https://doi. org/10.2174/1874325001307010506
2. Howell ER, Hudes K, Vernon H, Soave D. Relationships Between Cervical Range of Motion, Self-Rated Disability and Fear of Movement Beliefs in Chronic Neck Pain Patients. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 2012;20(1):18-24. https://doi. org/10.3109/10582452.2011.635849
3. da Silva RM, Bezerra MA, Santos de Araújo AD, de Paula Gomes CAF, da Silva Souza C et al. Inactive individuals with chronic neck pain have changes in range of motion and functional performance of the shoulder. Physiotherapy Research International 2018;23(4):e1739. https://doi. org/10.1002/pri.1739
4. Cunha ACV, Burke TN, França FJR, Marques AP. Effect of global posture reeducation and of static stretching on pain, range of motion, and quality of life in women with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Clinics 2008;63(6):763-770. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322008000600010
5. Stenneberg MS, Rood M, de Bie R, Schmitt MA, Cattrysse E et al. To What Degree Does Active Cervical Range of Motion Differ Between Patients With Neck Pain, Patients With Whiplash, and Those Without Neck Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2017;98(7):1407-1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apmr.2016.10.003
6. Lee H, Nicholson LL, Adams RD. Cervical range of motion associations with subclinical neck pain. Spine 2004;29(1):33-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000103944.10408.BA
7. de Koning CH, van den Heuvel SP, Staal JB, Smits-Engelsman BC, Hendriks EJ. Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. European Spine Journal 2008;17(7):905-921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0656-3
8. Chiu TTW, Lo SK. Evaluation of cervical range of motion and isometric neck muscle strength: reliability and validity. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16(8):851-858. https://doi. org/10.1191/0269215502cr550o
9. Langenfeld A, Bastiaenen C, Sieben J, Humphreys BK, Swanenburg J. Patient’s subjective impression of cervical range of motion: a mixed-methods approach. Spine 2018;43(18):1082- 1088. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002627
10. Jordan K. Assessment of published reliability studies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurement tools. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2000;23(3):180- 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90248-3
11. Strimpakos N. The assessment of the cervical spine. Part 1: Range of motion and proprioception. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 2011;15(1):114-124. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2009.06.003
12. Wolan-Nieroda A, Guzik A, Mocur P, Drużbicki M, Maciejczak A. Assessment of Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) Goniometer. BioMed Research International 2020;2020(1):1-8 https://doi. org/10.1155/2020/8908035
13. Pérez-de la Cruz S, de León ÓA, Mallada NP, Rodríguez AV. Validity and intra-examiner reliability of the Hawk goniometer versus the universal goniometer for the measurement of range of motion of the glenohumeral joint. Medical Engineering & Physics 2021;89(3):7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. medengphy.2021.01.005
14. Farooq MN, Bandpei MAM, Ali M, Khan GA. Reliability of the universal goniometer for assessing active cervical range of motion in asymptomatic healthy persons. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2016;32(2):457-461. http://dx.doi. org/10.12669/pjms.322.8747
15. Allahyari T, Sahraneshin Samani A, Khalkhali HR. Validity of the Microsoft Kinect for measurement of neck angle: comparison with electrogoniometry. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 2017;23(4):524-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2016.1219148
16. Assink N, Bergman GJ, Knoester B, Winters JC, Dijkstra PU. Assessment of the cervical range of motion over time, differences between results of the Flock of Birds and the EDI-320: A comparison between an electromagnetic tracking system and an electronic inclinometer. Manual Therapy 2008;13(5):450- 455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2007.05.012
17. Langenfeld A, Bastiaenen C, Sieben J, Swanenburg J. Development and validation of a self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (S-ROM-Neck) in chronic neck pain patients. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 2018;37(10):75- 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.04.004
18. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007;60(1):34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2006.03.012
19. Tuğay U, Tuğay N, Gelecek N, Özkan M. Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2011;131(5):687- 694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1242-9
20. Beaton DE, Schemitsch E. Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2003;413(1):90-105. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. blo.0000079772.06654.c8
21. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1993;46(12):1417-1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895- 4356(93)90142-N
22. MacDowall A, Skeppholm M, Robinson Y, Olerud C. Validation of the visual analog scale in the cervical spine. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2017;28(3):227-235. https://doi. org/10.3171/2017.5.SPINE1732
23. Aslan E, Karaduman A, Yakut Y, Aras B, Simsek IE et al. The Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of Neck Disability Index in Patients With Neck Pain: A Turkish Version Study. Spine 2008;33(11):362-365. https://doi.org/10.1097/ BRS.0b013e31817144e1
24. Salamh PA, Kolber M. The reliability, minimal detectable change and concurrent validity of a gravity-based bubble inclinometer and iphone application for measuring standing lumbar lordosis. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 2014;30(1):62-67. https:// doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2013.800174
25. Baumgartner TA, Chung H. Confidence Limits for Intraclass Reliability Coefficients. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 2001;5(3):179-188. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327841MPEE0503_4
26. Özkeskin M, Özden F, Ekmekçi Ö, Yüceyar N. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ) and Telemedicine Patient Questionnaire (TPQ) in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Neurological Sciences 2022;43(3):1921-1927. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05519-1
27. Printza A. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Diseases of the Head and Neck. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2022;11(12):3358-3361. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123358
28. Comins JD, Brodersen J, Christensen KB, Jensen J, Hansen CF et al. Responsiveness, minimal important difference, minimal relevant difference, and optimal number of patients for a study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2021;31(6):1239-1248.
29. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13855
30. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2009;39(5):400-417. https://doi.org/10.2519/ jospt.2009.2930
31. Angst F. The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011;11(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 2288-11-152

APA	Özden F, Aslan Telci E, ŞEKERÖZ S, AKKAYA N (2023). The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. , 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
Chicago	Özden Fatih,Aslan Telci Emine,ŞEKERÖZ SERBAY,AKKAYA NURAY The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. (2023): 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
MLA	Özden Fatih,Aslan Telci Emine,ŞEKERÖZ SERBAY,AKKAYA NURAY The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. , 2023, ss.610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
AMA	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. . 2023; 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
Vancouver	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. . 2023; 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
IEEE	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N "The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain." , ss.610 - 618, 2023. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
ISNAD	Özden, Fatih vd. "The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain". (2023), 610-618. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5622

APA	Özden F, Aslan Telci E, ŞEKERÖZ S, AKKAYA N (2023). The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 53(2), 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
Chicago	Özden Fatih,Aslan Telci Emine,ŞEKERÖZ SERBAY,AKKAYA NURAY The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 53, no.2 (2023): 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
MLA	Özden Fatih,Aslan Telci Emine,ŞEKERÖZ SERBAY,AKKAYA NURAY The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, vol.53, no.2, 2023, ss.610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
AMA	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2023; 53(2): 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
Vancouver	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2023; 53(2): 610 - 618. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
IEEE	Özden F,Aslan Telci E,ŞEKERÖZ S,AKKAYA N "The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain." Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 53, ss.610 - 618, 2023. 10.55730/1300-0144.5622
ISNAD	Özden, Fatih vd. "The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-administered neck mobility assessment tool (s-rom-neck) in patients with chronic neck pain". Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 53/2 (2023), 610-618. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5622