SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale in Individuals With Low Back Pain

Bel Ağrısı Olan Bireylerde Bel Aktivite Güven Ölçeğinin Türkçe Versiyonunun Psikometrik Özellikleri

Betül Taşpınar(İZMİR DEMOKRASİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3106-2285
Ferruh Taspinar(İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi)0000-0002-5084-2949
Onur Engin(İZMİR DEMOKRASİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7490-9418
Cansu Özdemir(AVRASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0000-8908-5941
Pages
125–136
Publication Date
2026-09-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, considering that low back pain negatively affects self-efficacy; it is thought that the use of the scale in clinical studies and routine clinical practices in our country will be useful in creating effective rehabilitation programs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:ABSTRACT Objective: One of the most frequent causes of admission to outpatient clinics for physical medicine and rehabilitation is low back pain.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) is a 15-question scale that evaluates patients with low back pain in terms of self-efficacy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, considering that low back pain negatively affects self-efficacy; it is thought that the use of the scale in clinical studies and routine clinical practices in our country will be useful in creating effective rehabilitation programs.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:bel ağrısı · Psikometrik Özellikler · Türkçe Versiyon

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: One of the most frequent causes of admission to outpatient clinics for physical medicine and rehabilitation is low back pain. One of the most important parameters for detecting functional improvement in patients with low back pain is self-efficacy. The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) is a 15-question scale that evaluates patients with low back pain in terms of self-efficacy. The objective of our study is to adapt LoBACS for the Turkish language and to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version. Materials and Methods: Beaton et al.'s recommendations for the cultural adaption of scales serve as the foundation for scale translation. For adaptation, the five-step translation into Turkish from the source language, the synthesis of the translations, the translation of the scale translated into Turkish back to the original language were completed. The translations in both languages were examined and the necessary adaptations were made. The translation was completed, and the test-retest stages were followed. 152 individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who complained of low back pain at the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Outpatient Clinic were given the translated scaleThe validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the questionnaire were statistically assessed based on the data collected. Results: The average age of the 152 patients was 46.7±15 years , the activity VAS was 6.74±1.66 and the resting VAS was 6.45±1.79. One hundred and five (69.1%) of the patients were female. The data was determined to be appropriate for factor analysis using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (KMO=0.861). As a result of the factor analysis, three factors were revealed, and it was determined that the values and item loads of the items were between 0.716 and 0.871. When the internal consistency was evaluated, the Chronbach alpha values of the factors were found to be 0.901, 0.785, 0.865, respectively, and 0.889 for the total scale. Structural equation modeling was well accommodated; The chi-square/SD ratio was 1.497, while the RMSEA was 0.057. In addition, indices such as the Incremental Fit Index (IFI = 0.974), Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.974), General Fit Index (GFI = 0.913) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = 0.964) exceeded acceptable thresholds, confirming the strength of the structural validity of the scale. Conclusion: The study's findings demonstrated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of LoBACS in individuals with low back pain. Thus, considering that low back pain negatively affects self-efficacy; it is thought that the use of the scale in clinical studies and routine clinical practices in our country will be useful in creating effective rehabilitation programs.

Özet

ÖZET Amaç: Fiziksel tıp ve rehabilitasyon polikliniklerine başvuruların en sık nedenlerinden biri bel ağrısıdır. Bel ağrılı hastalarda fonksiyonel iyileşmenin belirlenmesinde en önemli parametrelerden biri öz yeterliliktir. Bel Aktivite Güven Ölçeği (Low Back Activity Confidence Scale, LoBACS), bel ağrılı hastaların öz yeterliliğini değerlendiren 15 maddelik bir ölçektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, LoBACS’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ölçeğin çeviri sürecinde Beaton ve ark.’nın kültürel uyarlama önerileri temel alınmıştır. Uyarlama kapsamında; kaynak dilden Türkçe’ye çeviri, çevirilerin sentezi, Türkçe’ye çevrilen ölçeğin tekrar özgün dile geri çevirisi olmak üzere beş aşamalı çeviri süreci tamamlanmıştır. Her iki dildeki çeviriler incelenmiş ve gerekli uyarlamalar yapılmıştır. Çeviri tamamlandıktan sonra test–tekrar test aşamaları uygulanmıştır. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Polikliniğine bel ağrısı şikâyeti ile başvuran, 18–65 yaş aralığındaki 152 bireye çevrilmiş ölçek uygulanmıştır. Toplanan veriler doğrultusunda anketin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği istatistiksel olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: 152 hastanın yaş ortalaması 46,7±15 yıl, aktivite sırasında VAS skoru 6,74±1,66 ve istirahat VAS skoru 6,45±1,79 idi. Hastaların 105’i (%69,1) kadındı. Verilerin faktör analizine uygunluğu Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) testi ile doğrulanmış olup KMO değeri 0,861 olarak bulunmuştur. Faktör analizi sonucunda üç faktör elde edilmiş ve maddelerin faktör yüklerinin 0,716 ile 0,871 arasında olduğu belirlenmiştir. İç tutarlılık değerlendirildiğinde, faktörlere ait Cronbach alfa değerleri sırasıyla 0,901, 0,785 ve 0,865; toplam ölçek için ise 0,889 olarak saptanmıştır. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi sonuçları iyi uyum göstermiştir; ki-kare/SD oranı 1,497 ve RMSEA değeri 0,057’dir. Ayrıca Artımlı Uyum İndeksi (IFI=0,974), Karşılaştırmalı Uyum İndeksi (CFI=0,974), Genel Uyum İndeksi (GFI=0,913) ve Tucker–Lewis İndeksi (TLI=0,964) kabul edilebilir eşik değerlerin üzerinde bulunarak ölçeğin yapısal geçerliğinin güçlü olduğunu doğrulamıştır. Sonuç: Çalışma bulguları, bel ağrılı bireylerde LoBACS’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Bel ağrısının öz yeterliliği olumsuz etkilediği göz önüne alındığında, ölçeğin ülkemizde klinik araştırmalarda ve rutin klinik uygulamalarda kullanılmasının etkili rehabilitasyon programlarının oluşturulmasına katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Taşpınar, B., Taspinar, F., Engin, O., Özdemir, C. (2026). Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale in Individuals With Low Back Pain. Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1851949

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. O’Sullivan PB, Twomey LT, Allison GT. Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2959–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199712150-00020.
  2. Norris C, Matthews M. The role of an integrated back stability program in patients with chronic low back pain. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2008;14:255–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CTCP.2008.06.001.
  3. Adams MA. THE BIOMECHANICS OF BACK PAIN. Australasian Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2003;11:37. 4. Baltacı G, Tunay V, Tuncer A, Ergün N. Spor Yaralanmalarında Egzersiz Tedavisi. 2nd ed. Ankara: Alp Yayınevi; 2006.
  4. Dixit RK. Current Romatoloji Tanı ve Tedavi. Bel Ağrısı Olan Hastaya Yaklaşım, 2006, p. 57–83.
  5. Gökoğlu G, Ekici G. Mekanik Bel Ağrısı Olan Bireylerde ‘Activity Pacing’ Yaklaşımının Özür, Aktivite-Dinlenme Dengesi ve Yaşam Kalitesine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 2021;9:15–20. https://doi.org/10.30720/ERED.578614.
  6. Knezevic NN, Candido KD, Vlaeyen JWS, Van Zundert J, Cohen SP. low back pain. Lancet 2021;398:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00733-9.
  7. Urits I, Burshtein A, Sharma M, Testa L, Gold PA, Orhurhu V, Viswanath O, Jones MR, Sidransky MA, Spektor B, Kaye AD. low back pain, a Comprehensive Review: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2019;23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11916-019-0757-1.
  8. Vadalà G, Russo F, De Salvatore S, Cortina G, Albo E, Papalia R, Denaro V. Physical Activity for the Treatment of Chronic low back pain in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med 2020;9:1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041023.
  9. Lackner JM, Carosella AM. The relative influence of perceived pain control, anxiety, and functional self efficacy on spinal function among patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2254–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199911010-00014.
  10. Lackner JM, Carosella AM, Feuerstein M. Pain expectancies, pain, and functional self-efficacy expectancies as determinants of disability in patients with chronic low back disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996;64:212–20. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.64.1.212.
  11. Yamada KA, Lewthwaite R, Popovich JM, Beneck GJ, Kulig K. The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS): Preliminary Validity and Reliability. Phys Ther 2011;91:1592–603. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100135.
  12. Davenport TE, Cleland JA, Yamada KA, Kulig K. Measurement Properties of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS). Eval Health Prof 2016;39:204–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278714527757.
  13. Denison E, Åsenlöf P, Sandborgh M, Lindberg P. Musculoskeletal Pain in Primary Health Care: Subgroups Based on Pain Intensity, Disability, Self-Efficacy, and Fear-Avoidance Variables. J Pain 2007;8:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2006.06.007.
  14. Davenport TE, Cleland JA, Yamada KA, Kulig K. Measurement Properties of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS). Eval Health Prof 2016;39:204–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278714527757.
  15. Strand S. Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). British Journal of Educational Psychology 2006;76:423–423. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X100611.
  16. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
  17. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983;17:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4.
  18. Lidgren L. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010: An update. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470052943810.
  19. Parreira P, Maher CG, Steffens D, Hancock MJ, Ferreira ML. Risk factors for low back pain and sciatica: an umbrella review. The Spine Journal 2018;18:1715–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.018.
  20. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN. low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;344:363–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200102013440508.
  21. Jeffries LJ, Milanese SF, Grimmer-Somers KA. Epidemiology of Adolescent Spinal Pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2630–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158d70b.
  22. Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Engberg M, Lauritzen T, Bruun NH, Manniche C. The course of low back pain in a general population. Results from a 5-year prospective study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:213–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(03)00006-X.
  23. Hush JM, Refshauge K, Sullivan G, De Souza L, Maher CG, McAuley JH. Recovery: What does this mean to patients with low back pain? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2009;61:124–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24162.
  24. Cassidy JD, Côté P, Carroll LJ, Kristman V. Incidence and Course of low back pain Episodes in the General Population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2817–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000190448.69091.53.
  25. Stanton TR, Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Latimer J, McAuley JH. After an Episode of Acute low back pain, Recurrence Is Unpredictable and Not as Common as Previously Thought. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2923–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818a3167.
  26. Chenot J-F, Becker A, Leonhardt C, Keller S, Donner-Banzhoff N, Hildebrandt J, Basler H-D, Baum E, Kochen MM, Pfingsten M. Sex Differences in Presentation, Course, and Management of low back pain in Primary Care. Clin J Pain 2008;24:578–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31816ed948.
  27. Knezevic NN, Candido KD, Vlaeyen JWS, Van Zundert J, Cohen SP. low back pain. The Lancet 2021;398:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00733-9.
  28. Bushnell MC, Čeko M, Low LA. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2013;14:502–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3516.
  29. Turk DC, Okifuji A. Psychological factors in chronic pain: Evolution and revolution. J Consult Clin Psychol 2002;70:678–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.678.
  30. Sharot T, Garrett N. Forming Beliefs: Why Valence Matters. Trends Cogn Sci 2016;20:25– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.002.
  31. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 1989;44:1175–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175.
  32. Arnstein P. The mediation of disability by self efficacy in different samples of chronic pain patients. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:794–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280050200296.
  33. Chong GS, Cogan D, Randolph P, Racz G. Chronic Pain and Self‐efficacy: The Effects of Age, Sex, and Chronicity. Pain Practice 2001;1:338–43. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1533-2500.2001.01035.x.
  34. Dolce JJ, Crocker MF, Doleys DM. Prediction of outcome among chronic pain patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy 1986;24:313–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(86)90191-9.
  35. O’Leary A, Shoor S, Lorig K, Holman HR. A cognitive-behavioral treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Psychology 1988;7:527–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.7.6.527.
  36. Foster NE, Thomas E, Bishop A, Dunn KM, Main CJ. Distinctiveness of psychological obstacles to recovery in low back pain patients in primary care. Pain 2010;148:398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.11.002.
  37. Martinez-Calderon J, Zamora-Campos C, Navarro-Ledesma S, Luque-Suarez A. The Role of Self-Efficacy on the Prognosis of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review. J Pain 2018;19:10–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2017.08.008.
  38. Dubé M-O, Langevin P, Roy J-S. Measurement properties of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Pain Rep 2021;6:e972. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000972.
  39. Dias JM, Silva MF, Dela Bela LF, Pelegrinelli ARM, Olkoski MM, Guenka LC, Yamada K, Cardoso JR. Assessment of measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the low back activity confidence scale (LoBACS) in patients with chronic low back pain. PLoS One 2020;15:e0239332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239332.