Content validity and test-retest reliability of a low back pain questionnaire in Zimbabwean adolescents.
Matthew Chiwaridzo, Tafadzwa Nicole Chikasha, Nirmala Naidoo and 4 others
PMID 29340198WHAT IT FOUND
A Zimbabwean adolescent low back pain questionnaire was judged relevant by experts, but answers about sciatica and functional limitation were inconsistent between assessments.
Use it to screen pain and factors, not to score function.
Key findings
01The questionnaire contained 30 questions, and 26 achieved complete agreement among four experts.
02Questions about school bag use and sports participation were answered consistently, while questions about sciatica and functional limitation were not.
03Only four of seven invited experts completed content validation, and they rated only relevance.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The expert panel was small and not representative of all relevant professions. Experts rated only relevance, not clarity, simplicity or ambiguity. The study did not test concurrent or construct validity. Recall bias and a long recall period could affect reported pain episodes and functional limitations.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this questionnaire as clinically proven to identify adolescents who need treatment. It was tested for expert-rated relevance and answer consistency, not for outcomes, and questions about sciatica and functional limitation were inconsistent.