3.8 Article

Outcome Measures of Functionality, Social Interaction, and Pain in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Validation Study for the Iranian Version of the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale

期刊

ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 901-908

出版社

KOREAN SOC SPINE SURGERY
DOI: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.6.901

关键词

Validity; Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: Cross-sectional. Purpose: To translate and validate the Iranian version of the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale (CNFDS). Overview of Literature: Instruments measuring patient-reported outcomes should satisfy certain psychometric properties. Methods: Ninety-three cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy were entered into the study and completed the CNFDS pre and postoperatively at the 6 month follow-up. The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association Score was also completed. The internal consistency, test-retest, convergent validity, construct validity (item scale correlation), and responsiveness to change were assessed. Results: Mean age of the patients was 54.3 years (standard deviation, 8.9). The Cronbach a coefficient was satisfactory (alpha=0.84). Test-retest reliability as assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient analysis was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98). The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score correlated strongly with the CNFDS score, lending support to its good convergent validity (r=-0.80; p<0.001). Additionally, the correlation of each item with its hypothesized domain on the CNFDS was acceptable, suggesting that the items had a substantial relationship with their own domains. These results also indicate that the instrument was responsive to change (p<0.0001). Conclusions: The findings suggest that the Iranian version of the CNFDS is a valid measure to assess functionality, social interaction, and pain among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据