| 1. |
- Björklund, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
The assessment of symptoms and functional limitations in low back pain patients : validity and reliability of a new questionnaire
- 2007
-
In: European spine journal. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0940-6719 .- 1432-0932. ; 16:11, s. 1799-1811
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Many of the existing low back pain (LBP) questionnaires of function and symptoms have a content of different domains of disability presented as a single sum score, making it difficult to derive changes within a specific domain. The present study describes the development of a clinically derived back-specific questionnaire incorporating both a functional limitation and a symptom scale, with a further subdivision of the symptom scale in separate indices for severity and temporal aspects. The aims of the study were to assess the overall reliability and validity of the new questionnaire, named the Profile Fitness Mapping questionnaire (PFM). A total of 193 chronic LBP patients answered the PFM together with five validated criterion questionnaires. For the internal consistency of the questionnaires, the three indices of the PFM had the highest Cronbach's alpha (0.90-0.95) and all items had item-total correlations above 0.2. The correlation coefficients between the PFM and the back-specific criterion questionnaires ranged between 0.61 and 0.83, indicating good concurrent criterion validity. The best discriminative ability between patients with different pain severities was demonstrated by the functional limitation scale of the PFM. Well centered score distribution with no patient's score at the floor or the ceiling level indicates that the PFM has the potential to detect the improvement or worsening of symptoms and functional limitations in chronic LBP patients. Classification according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and health (ICF) of WHO revealed a high degree of homogeneous item content of the symptom scale to the domain of impairments, and of the functional limitation scale to the domain of activity limitations. The present study suggests that the PFM has a high internal consistency and is a valid indicator of symptoms and functional limitations of LBP patients. It offers the combination of a composite total score and the possibility of evaluations within specific domains of disability. Complementary evaluation of test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change is warranted.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Björklund, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
The profile fitness mapping scales, validity of a new back-specific questionnaire
- 2009
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Disability questionnaires for LBP-patients mostlyemanate from health professionals and have a content of differentdomains of disability presented as a single sum score, makingit difficult to derive changes within a specific domain. Thisstudy introduces a new back-specific questionnaire, the ProfileFitness Mapping questionnaire (PFM), which was based on patient’sself-reported characteristics of the LBP. The PFM incorporatesboth a functional limitation and a symptom scale, with furthersubdivision of the symptom scale in separate indices for severityand temporal aspects. The aim of the study was to assess theoverall validity of the PFM.Methods and Results: Chronic LBP-patients (n=193) answered thePFM and four validated back-specific criterion questionnaires.The correlation coefficients between the PFM and the criterionquestionnaires showed good concurrent criterion validity (0.61– 0.83). The best discriminative ability between patientswith different pain severity was demonstrated by the functionallimitation scale of the PFM. Classification according to theICF revealed a high degree of homogeneous item content of thesymptom scale to the domain of impairments, and of the functionallimitation scale to the domain of activity limitations. Wellcentered score distribution indicates that the PFM has the potentialto detect improvement or worsening of symptoms and functionallimitations in chronic LBP-patients.Conclusion: The results of the study signify that the PFM isa valid indicator of symptoms and functional limitations ofLBP-patients. It provides the combination of a composite totalscore and the possibility of evaluations within specific domainsof disability.
|
|
| 4. |
- Björklund, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
The profile fitness mapping scales, validity of a new back-specific questionnaire
- 2007
-
In: The 2007 Society for Back Pain Research Meeting.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Disability questionnaires for LBP-patients mostly emanate from health professionals and have a content of different domains of disability presented as a single sum score, making it difficult to derive changes within a specific domain. This study introduces a new back-specific questionnaire, the Profile Fitness Mapping questionnaire (PFM), which was based on patient’s self-reported characteristics of the LBP. The PFM incorporates both a functional limitation and a symptom scale, with further subdivision of the symptom scale in separate indices for severity and temporal aspects. The aim of the study was to assess the overall validity of the PFM. METHODS AND RESULTS: Chronic LBP-patients (n=193) answered the PFM and four validated back-specific criterion questionnaires. The correlation coefficients between the PFM and the criterion questionnaires showed good concurrent criterion validity (0.61 – 0.83). The best discriminative ability between patients with different pain severity was demonstrated by the functional limitation scale of the PFM. Classification according to the ICF revealed a high degree of homogeneous item content of the symptom scale to the domain of impairments, and of the functional limitation scale to the domain of activity limitations. Well centered score distribution indicates that the PFM has the potential to detect improvement or worsening of symptoms and functional limitations in chronic LBP-patients. CONCLUSION: The results of the study signify that the PFM is a valid indicator of symptoms and functional limitations of LBP-patients. It provides the combination of a composite total score and the possibility of evaluations within specific domains of disability.
|
|
| 5. |
- Björklund, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
The ProFitMap-neck - reliability and validity of a questionnaire for measuring symptoms and functional limitations in neck pain
- 2012
-
In: Disability and Rehabilitation. - London : Informa Healthcare. - 0963-8288 .- 1464-5165. ; 34:13, s. 1096-1107
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To assess overall reliability and validity of a neck-specific questionnaire, the Profile Fitness Mapping neck questionnaire (ProFitMap-neck), on three chronic neck pain groups. Method: Participating groups were as follows: whiplash associated disorders, inpatient care (IP-WAD, n = 127); nonspecific neck pain, inpatient care (IP-NS, n = 83) and nonspecific neck pain subjects (non-IP-NS, n = 104). All groups answered the ProFitMap-neck and the SF-36, whereas non-IP-NS also answered the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Functional Self-Efficacy Scale (SES). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and components of convergent construct, face and content validity were determined for the ProFitMap-neck. Results: The ProFitMap-neck showed good internal consistency in all three groups, and ICC test-retest reliability (0.80-0.91). Good correlation (0.66-0.78) and highest agreement was reached with NDI. According to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, the symptom scale of the ProFitMap-neck was mainly classified to the domain of impairments-body functions, and the functional limitation scale to the activity limitation domain. Conclusion: The results indicate that the ProFitMap-neck is valid for measuring symptoms and functional limitations in people with chronic neck pain. The combination of a composite total score of symptoms and function as well as separate scores of each domain makes ProFitMap-neck suitable for research as well as in clinical practice.
|
|
