Type of Article : Original

Year: 2014 | Volume 2 | Issue 6 | Page No. 743-750

Date of Publication: 23-11-2014

DOI: 10.16965/ijpr.2014.677

HINDI TRANSLATION  AND  PSYCHOMETRIC  EVALUATION  OF  THE  OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX (ODI) VERSION 2.1a  

Kanika Sinha *¹, Megha Arora Nijhawan ², Minni Grover ³. 

*¹MPT (Musculoskeletal), ISIC Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, New Delhi, India.
²MPT (Musculoskeletal), Assistant Professor, ISIC Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, New Delhi, India.
³Senior Physiotherapist, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, Hari nagar, New Delhi, India.

Corresponding author: Kanika Sinha, MPT (Musculoskeletal )ISIC Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, New Delhi, India.
E-Mail: sinha.kanika.1@gmail.com

Abstract:

Study Design: Methodological Study, translation
Objective: To translate the original English version of Oswestry Disability Index Version-2.1a into Hindi language and to assess its content validity, Internal Consistency and Test-Retest reliability.
Summary of Background Data: ODI has been validated, and used as an outcome measure for various Low Back Pain conditions and its Hindi version is not available.
Methods: The translation was carried out in accordance with the Linguistic validation of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure, provided by the Mapi institute. Content validity was evaluated through Qualitative (Wallace & McKenzie) and Quantitative methods (Lawshe). Internal Consistency and Test-retest Reliability was examined on 50 patients.
Results: Internal consistency for Hindi ODI version 2.1a was excellent with Cronbach‟s alpha=0.947. The intraclass correlation coefficient of test–retest reliability was 0.900.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the Hindi version of the ODI 2.1a is a reliable and valid instrument for the measurement of disability in patients with low back pain.
KEY WORDS: Oswestry Disability Index, translation, reliability, validity, low back pain.

References

1. Manchikanti L. Epidemiology of Low Back Pain, Pain Physician. 2000; 3(2):167 92.
2. Yi-Jing Lue, Ching-Lin Hsieh, Mao-Hsiung Huang, Gau-Tyan Lin, and Yen-Mou Lu. Development of a Chinese Version of the Oswestry Disability Index Version 2.1. Spine 2008;33(21):2354–60.
3. Shyamal Koley, L Neha. No Relationship between Low Back Pain and Hamstring. Flexibility Anthropologist. 2011;13(2):117-120.
4. Michael Vianin. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 2008;7:161–163.
5. Henrik Hein Lauridsen, Jan Hartvigsen, Claus Manniche, Lars Korsholm, Niels Grunnet-Nilsson. Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1705–1716.
6. Petros J. Boscainos, George Sapkas, Eugenia Stilianessi, Konstantinos Prouskas, Stamatios A. Papadakis. Greek Versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.2003; 41:40–53.
7. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25:3115–3124.
8. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000; 25:2940–2952.
9. Muller U, Roeder C, Dubs L, Duetz MS, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: Scale construction. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13:314–324.
10. Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine. J .2004;13:301–313.
11. Ricardo Vigatto, Neusa Maria Costa Alexandre, and Heleno Rodrigues Correa Filho. Development of a Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Oswestry Disability Index, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity. Spine.2007;32( 4):481–486.
12. Isador H. Lieberman and Karen Talmadge. Kyphoplasty for Women with Compression Fractures. Clinical Reviews in Bone and Mineral Metabolism, 2005; 3(2), 149–156,
13. Mapi Research Institute - Linguistic validation of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure.
14. James McKenzie, Martin L. Wood, Jerome E. Kotecki,Jeffery K. Clark, Rebecca A. Brey. Establishing Content Validity: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Steps. Am J Health Behav 1999;23(4):311-318.
15.  Lorraine Silver Wallace, Gregory H. Blake, Jon S. Parham, Ruth E. Baldridge. Development and Content Validation of Family Practice Residency Recruitment Questionnaires. Fam Med 2003;35(7):496-8.
16.  C. H. Lawshe. A quantitative approach to Content Validity. Personnel psychology. 1975; 28:563-575.
17. Portney LG & Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research application to practice. 3rd ed. Pearson Education. Chapter 6, Validity, p-69-67.
18.  Mohsen Tavakol, Reg Dennick. Making sense of Cronbach‟s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education.2011;2:53-55.
19. Portney LG & Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research application to practice. 3rd ed. Pearson Education. Chapter 5, Reliability, p-53-67.
20. Thomas L. Walsh, Brett Hanscom, Jon D. Lurie, James N. Weinstein. Is a Condition-Specific Instrument for Patients with Low Back Pain/Leg Symptoms Really Necessary? The Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS and the SF-36. Spine ;28(6):607–615.
21. M P Sampat, J Whitman, T W Stephens, L D Broemeling, N A Heger, A C Bovik, M K Markey The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of speculated masses on mammography. The British Journal of Radiology. 2006;S134–S140.