Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain 
Questionnaire

Alhomedha, Ghofran; Citaker, Seyit; Gunaydin, Gurkan; Khan, Furqan; Sezer, Refia

doi:10.14744/agri.2021.24861

Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire

Ghofran ALHOMEDAH, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Seyit ÇITAKER, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)

Gürkan GÜNAYDIN, (Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)

Furqan KHAN, (Tahran Tıp Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Ortopedik Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, İran)

Refia SEZER (İzzet Baysal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü, Bolu, Türkiye)

Ağrı

3 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 16 - 22 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/agri.2021.24861 İndeks Tarihi: 04-07-2022

Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire

Öz:

Objectives: Evaluation of low back pain (LBP) requires a condition specific disability questionnaire along with pain and satisfaction measure such as self-assessment pain scales. Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) is a 16-item visual analog scale, developed for evaluating patient’s cognitions about the percentage that chronic pain affects four aspects of the subject’s lives. It’s easy to understand; can be answered in 3–5 min and can be scored in <1 min. This reliability and validation study offers health-care providers an opportunity to utilize this distinct questionnaire in Turkish population with back pain. The objectives are translation of Dallas questionnaire from English to Turkish language and to perform validation and reliability study. Methods: A total of 102 patients (79 women and 23 men) with mean age of 50.2 years and LBP for at least 3 months answered DPQ along with five other previously translated and validated questionnaires in Turkish language. Fifty-nine of these patients participated retest reliability after 7 days. Internal consistency and test-retest analyzes were conducted to determine the reliability and convergent validity was evaluated for the validation study. Results: The questionnaire was noted to have high internal consistency. The test-retest analysis revealed an excellent correlation (ICC=0.969). Pearson correlation coefficient shows that all subscales (sections) of DPQ are significant and comparable with each of the other questionnaires included in this study proving that it has sufficient convergent validity (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Turkish version of DPQ is content, valid, and reliable. DPQ is sensitive to use in patients with LBP.

Anahtar Kelime:

Dallas Ağrı Anketi'nin Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği

Öz:

Amaç: Bel ağrısının değerlendirilmesi, öz değerlendirme ölçekleri gibi ağrı ve memnuniyet ölçümü ile birlikte duruma özel bir sakatlık anketi gerektirir. Dallas Ağrı Anketi, hastanın, yaşamında dört yönün kronik ağrıdan etkilendiği yüzdeye ilişkin bilişlerini değerlendirmek için geliştirilmiş 16 maddelik bir görsel analog skaladır. Anlaması kolaydır; 3–5 dakikada tamamlanabilir ve 1 dakikadan daha kısa sürede puanlanabilir. Bu güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması, sağlık çalışanlarına, sırt ağrısı olan Türk popülasyonda bu farklı anketi kullanma fırsatı sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, Dallas Anketi’nin İngilizce’den Türkçe’ye çevrilmesi ve geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ortalama yaşı 50,2 yıl olan ve en az 3 aydır bel ağrısı olan 102 hasta (79 kadın ve 23 erkek), Dallas Ağrı Anketi’ni ve daha önce Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş ve onaylanmış diğer beş anketi yanıtladı. Bu hastaların 59’u 7 gün sonra tekrar test güvenilirliğine katıldı. Güvenilirliği belirlemek için iç tutarlılık ve test-tekrar test analizleri yapılmış ve geçerlilik çalışması için yakınsak geçerlilik değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Anketin iç tutarlılığının yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Test-tekrar test analizi mükemmel bir korelasyon ortaya koymuştur (ICC=0,969). Pearson korelasyon katsayısı, Dallas Ağrı Anketi’nin tüm alt ölçeklerinin (bölümlerinin) anlamlı olduğunu ve bu çalışmaya dahil edilen diğer anketlerin her biri ile karşılaştırılabilir olduğunu göstermektedir ve yeterli yakınsak geçerliliğe sahip olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır (p<0.001). Sonuç: Dallas Ağrı Anketi’nin Türkçe versiyonu kapsamlı, geçerli ve güvenilirdir. Dallas Ağrı Anketi, bel ağrısı olan hastalarda kullanıma duyarlıdır.

Anahtar Kelime:

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

1. Müller U, Röder C, Greenough CG. Back related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J 2006;15(Suppl 1):S25– 31.
2. Holt AE, Shaw NJ, Shetty A, Greenough CG. The reliability of the low back outcome score for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(2):206–10.
3. Burns BD. An evidence-based approach to the evaluation and treatment of low back pain in the emergency department. Emerg Med Pract 2013;15(7):1–23; Quiz 23–4.
4. Luo X, Pietrobon R, Sun SX, Liu GG, Hey L. Estimates and patterns of direct health care expenditures among individuals with back pain in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29(1):79–86.
5. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66(8):271–3.
6. Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17(1):36–41.
7. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8(2):141–4.
8. Bolton JE, Breen AC. The bournemouth questionnaire: A short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999;22(8):503–10.
9. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(3):341–52.
10. Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE. The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14(5):511–6.
11. Marty M, Blotman F, Avouac B, Rozenberg S, Valat JP. Validation of the French version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire in chronic low back pain patients. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 1998;65(2):126–34.
12. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46(12):1417–32.
13. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19(1):231–40.
14. Schlösser TP, Stadhouder A, Schimmel JJ, Lehr AM, van der Heijden GJ, Castelein RM. Reliability and validity of the adapted dutch version of the revised scoliosis research society 22-item questionnaire. Spine J 2014;14(8):1663–72.
15. Feise RJ, Michael Menke J. Functional rating index: A new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(1):78–86; discussion 87.
16. Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Wardlaw D, Russell IT. Developing a valid and reliable measure of health outcome for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19(17):1887– 96.
17. Calmels P, Béthoux F, Condemine A, Fayolle-Minon I. Low back pain disability assessment tools. Ann Readapt Med Phys 2005;48(6):288–97.
18. Andersen T, Christensen FB, Bünger C. Evaluation of a dallas pain questionnaire classification in relation to outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 2006;15(11):1671–85.
19. Piperno M, Hellio le Graverand MP, Reboul P, Mathieu P, Tron AM, et al. Phospholipase A2 activity in herniated lumbar discs. Clinical correlations and inhibition by piroxicam. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22(18):2061–5.
20. Ozguler A, Guéguen A, Leclerc A, Landre MF, Piciotti M, Le Gall S, et al. Using the Dallas Pain Questionnaire to classify individuals with low back pain in a working population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(16):1783–9.
21. Wilhelm F, Fayolle-Minon I, Phaner V, Le-Quang B, Rimaud D, Béthoux F, et al. Sensitivity to change of the Quebec back pain disability scale and the Dallas pain questionnaire. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2010;53(1):15–23.
22. Alhomedah G, Çıtaker S, Günaydın G, Sezer R, Khan F. Reliability and validation of the Turkish version of the low back outcome score. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2020;54(2):161–7.
23. Gunaydin G, Citaker S, Meray J, Cobanoglu G, Gunaydin OE, Kanik ZH. Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the Bournemouth questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41(21):E1292–7.
24. Yakut E, Düger T, Oksüz C, Yörükan S, Ureten K, Turan D, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29(5):581–5; discussion 585.
25. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H. Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(24):2738–43.
26. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I, Bilgilisoy M, Tuncer T. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec back pain disability scale for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(6):E219–24.
27. Kocyigit H. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of short form-36 (SF-36): A study in a group of patients will rheumatic diseases. Turk J Drugs Ther 1999;12:102–6.

APA	Alhomedha G, Citaker S, Gunaydin G, Khan F, Sezer R (2022). Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. , 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
Chicago	Alhomedha Ghofran,Citaker Seyit,Gunaydin Gurkan,Khan Furqan,Sezer Refia Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. (2022): 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
MLA	Alhomedha Ghofran,Citaker Seyit,Gunaydin Gurkan,Khan Furqan,Sezer Refia Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. , 2022, ss.16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
AMA	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. . 2022; 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
Vancouver	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. . 2022; 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
IEEE	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R "Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire." , ss.16 - 22, 2022. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
ISNAD	Alhomedha, Ghofran vd. "Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire". (2022), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.14744/agri.2021.24861

APA	Alhomedha G, Citaker S, Gunaydin G, Khan F, Sezer R (2022). Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Ağrı, 34(1), 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
Chicago	Alhomedha Ghofran,Citaker Seyit,Gunaydin Gurkan,Khan Furqan,Sezer Refia Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Ağrı 34, no.1 (2022): 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
MLA	Alhomedha Ghofran,Citaker Seyit,Gunaydin Gurkan,Khan Furqan,Sezer Refia Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Ağrı, vol.34, no.1, 2022, ss.16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
AMA	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Ağrı. 2022; 34(1): 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
Vancouver	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Ağrı. 2022; 34(1): 16 - 22. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
IEEE	Alhomedha G,Citaker S,Gunaydin G,Khan F,Sezer R "Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire." Ağrı, 34, ss.16 - 22, 2022. 10.14744/agri.2021.24861
ISNAD	Alhomedha, Ghofran vd. "Reliability and validation of Turkish version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire". Ağrı 34/1 (2022), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.14744/agri.2021.24861