Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and construct validity of the Thai version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 in individuals with chronic low back pain

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To culturally adapt the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 into Thai (T-PROMIS-29) and evaluate the reliability and validity of the culturally adapted questionnaire.

Methods

The translation was performed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation guidelines. Unidimensionality, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability at a 1-week interval for the translated measure were computed. Construct validity was evaluated by computing correlations between the T-PROMIS-29 scores and selected SF-36 scale scores.

Results

The study sample comprised of 241 participants with chronic low back pain. Internal consistencies were good to excellent, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.84 to 0.94. The test–retest stability of all T-PROMIS-29 domains were moderate to good, with ICCs(2,1) ranging from 0.57 to 0.74. Unidimensionality, convergent validity, and divergent construct validity were satisfactory.

Conclusions

The findings support the reliability and validity of the T-PROMIS-29 scale scores. The measure can be used to assess key quality of life domains in individuals from Thailand with chronic low back pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R., & Gallacher, D. (2006). Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European Journal of Pain,10(4), 287–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawai, K., Kawai, A. T., Wollan, P., & Yawn, B. P. (2017). Adverse impacts of chronic pain on health-related quality of life, work productivity, depression and anxiety in a community-based study. Family Practice,34(6), 656–661. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmx034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bjornsdottir, S. V., Jonsson, S. H., & Valdimarsdottir, U. A. (2014). Mental health indicators and quality of life among individuals with musculoskeletal chronic pain: A nationwide study in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology,43(5), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009742.2014.881549.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hirase, T., Kataoka, H., Inokuchi, S., Nakano, J., Sakamoto, J., & Okita, M. (2017). Factors associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain in Japanese community-dwelling older adults: A cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore),96(23), e7069. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Husky, M. M., Ferdous Farin, F., Compagnone, P., Fermanian, C., & Kovess-Masfety, V. (2018). Chronic back pain and its association with quality of life in a large French population survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,16(1), 195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1018-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gore, M., Sadosky, A., Stacey, B. R., Tai, K. S., & Leslie, D. (2012). The burden of chronic low back pain: Clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual care settings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),37(11), E668–E677. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318241e5de.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi, Y. S., Kim, D. J., Lee, K. Y., Park, Y. S., Cho, K. J., Lee, J. H., et al. (2014). How does chronic back pain influence quality of life in koreans: A cross-sectional study. Asian Spine Journal,8(3), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2014.8.3.346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wettstein, M., Eich, W., Bieber, C., & Tesarz, J. (2019). Pain intensity, disability, and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: Does age matter? Pain Medicine,20(3), 464–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roland, M., & Morris, R. (1983). 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),8(2), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fairbank, J. C., Couper, J., Davies, J. B., & O’Brien, J. P. (1980). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy,66(8), 271–273.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kopec, J. A., Esdaile, J. M., Abrahamowicz, M., Abenhaim, L., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Lamping, D. L., et al. (1996). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Conceptualization and development. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,49(2), 151–161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jirarattanaphochai, K., Jung, S., Sumananont, C., & Saengnipanthkul, S. (2005). Reliability of the Roland- Morris Disability Questionnaire (Thai version) for the evaluation of low back pain patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand,88(3), 407–411.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanjaroensuttikul, N. (2007). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (version 1.0) Thai version. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand,90(7), 1417–1422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities,16(1), 51–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Deyo, R. A., Dworkin, S. F., Amtmann, D., Andersson, G., Borenstein, D., Carragee, E., et al. (2014). Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain. The Journal of Pain,15(6), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2014.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Deyo, R. A., Katrina, R., Buckley, D. I., Michaels, L., Kobus, A., Eckstrom, E., et al. (2016). Performance of a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) short form in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Medicine,17(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnv046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kroenke, K., Yu, Z., Wu, J., Kean, J., & Monahan, P. O. (2014). Operating characteristics of PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain. Pain Medicine,15(11), 1892–1901. https://doi.org/10.1111/pme.12537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Askew, R. L., Cook, K. F., Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., & Amtmann, D. (2016). Evidence from diverse clinical populations supported clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook, K. F., Jensen, S. E., Schalet, B. D., Beaumont, J. L., Amtmann, D., Czajkowski, S., et al. (2016). PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.038.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Purvis, T. E., Andreou, E., Neuman, B. J., Riley, L. H., 3rd, & Skolasky, R. L. (2017). Concurrent validity and responsiveness of PROMIS health domains among patients presenting for anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),42(23), E1357–E1365. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., de Vet, H. C., Dekker, J., Westhovens, R., van Leeuwen, J., et al. (2014). Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research,23(6), 1733–1741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0611-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions,28(2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M., O’Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., et al. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. BMJ,305(6846), 160–164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lim, L. L., Seubsman, S. A., & Sleigh, A. (2008). Thai SF-36 health survey: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and validity in healthy men and women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,6, 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Laosanguanek, N., Wiroteurairuang, T., Siritho, S., & Prayoonwiwat, N. (2011). Reliability of the Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for an evaluation of quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients in multiple sclerosis clinic at Siriraj Hospital. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand,94(Suppl 1), S84–S88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kamper, S. J., Ostelo, R. W., Knol, D. L., Maher, C. G., de Vet, H. C., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(7), 760–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,19(1), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine,15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,59(10), 1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Ostelo, R. W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,4, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hung, M., Bounsanga, J., Voss, M. W., & Saltzman, C. L. (2018). Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World Journal of Orthopedics,9(3), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hung, M., Saltzman, C. L., Kendall, R., Bounsanga, J., Voss, M. W., Lawrence, B., et al. (2018). What are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI instruments among patients with spinal conditions? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,476(10), 2037–2039. https://doi.org/10.1097/Corr.0000000000000465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences,42(5), 869–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research,99(6), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.3200/Joer.99.6.323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kenney, R. J., Houck, J., Giordano, B. D., Baumhauer, J. F., Herbert, M., & Maloney, M. D. (2019). Do patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) scales demonstrate responsiveness as well as disease-specific scales in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy? American Journal of Sports Medicine,47(6), 1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519832546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Brodsky, J. W., Cheng, C., Ellis, S. J., Franklin, J. D., et al. (2014). Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot and Ankle International,35(6), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714528492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hung, M., Saltzman, C. L., Greene, T., Voss, M. W., Bounsanga, J., Gu, Y., et al. (2018). Evaluating instrument responsiveness in joint function: The HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF CAT. Journal of Orthopaedic Research,36(4), 1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brodke, D. S., Goz, V., Voss, M. W., Lawrence, B. D., Spiker, W. R., & Hung, M. (2017). PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in spine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),42(12), 921–929. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund) [GCUGR1125614073M]. A scholarship from the Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University to commemorate the 72th anniversary of his Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Polake Rawang, Prawit Janwantanakul & Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn

  2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Illinois, USA

    Helena Correia

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Mark P. Jensen

Authors
  1. Polake Rawang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prawit Janwantanakul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helena Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark P. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Spearman correlation coefficients for all correlations of baseline T-PROMIS-29 scores and the other health domain questionnaires (n = 241)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rawang, P., Janwantanakul, P., Correia, H. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and construct validity of the Thai version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 in individuals with chronic low back pain. Qual Life Res 29, 793–803 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02363-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02363-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation