SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE GRADED CHRONIC PAIN SCALE 2.0

DERECELİ KRONİK AĞRI ÖLÇEĞİ 2.0`NİN TÜRKÇE VERSİYONUNUN GÜVENİRLİK VE GEÇERLİLİĞİ

Hüsniye YOL AĞIL
Rasmi MUAMMER
Pages
199–207
Publication Date
2023-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the GCPS 2.0 is a valid and reliable measurement tool for patients with chronic LBP.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To investigate the translation and cultural adaptation, the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) 2.0.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Cronbach's alpha was calculated as 0.89 to determine internal consistency.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The Turkish version of the GCPS 2.0 is a valid and reliable measurement tool for patients with chronic LBP.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kronik Ağrı · Engellilik · Bel Ağrısı

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the translation and cultural adaptation, the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) 2.0. Methods: The study was an observational and cross-sectional study translated and adapted into Turkish according to the Beaton protocol. Data was collected from eighty participants diagnosed with chronic low back pain (LBP) by a physician. Due to the pandemic, the scales were sent to patients via online form. Reliability was assessed using the test-retest method, parallel form method, and internal consistency. Validity was assessed using face, content, and construct validity analyses. Results: Cronbach's alpha was calculated as 0.89 to determine internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was found to be 0.92 for the GCPS 2.0 total. Statisticaly significant correlation was found betweeen the GCPS 2.0 and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) ( r = 0.759 p = 0.001) and between the GCPS 2.0 and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (r = 0.777 p = 0.001). Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor structure. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the GCPS 2.0 is a valid and reliable measurement tool for patients with chronic LBP.

Özet

Amaç: Dereceli Kronik Ağrı Ölçeği 2.0'nin Türkçe versiyonunun çeviri ve kültürel uyarlaması, güvenirlik ve geçerliliğinin incelenmesi. Yöntem: Bu çalışma, Beaton protokolüne göre Türkçe'ye çevrilmiş ve uyarlanmış gözlemsel ve kesitsel bir çalışmadır. Veriler, doktor tarafından kronik bel ağrısı teşhisi konan 80 katılımcıdan toplandı. Pandemi nedeniyle ölçekler hastalara online form aracılığıyla gönderilmiştir. Güvenirlik; test-tekrar test yöntemi, paralel form yöntemi ve iç tutarlılık kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Geçerlilik; yüz, içerik ve yapı geçerliliği analizleri kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar: İç tutarlılığı belirlemek için Cronbach's alpha 0,89 olarak hesaplandı. Dereceli Kronik Ağrı Ölçeği 2.0 toplamı için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0,92 olarak bulunmuştur. Dereceli Kronik Ağrı Ölçeği 2.0 ile Oswestry Bel Ağrısı Engellilik İndeksi arasında (r = 0,759 p = 0,001) ve Dereceli Kronik Ağrı Ölçeği 2.0 ile Roland-Morris Engellilik Anketi arasında (r = 0,777 p = 0,001) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı korelasyon bulunmuştur. Faktör analizi 2 faktörlü bir yapı ortaya çıkarmıştır. Tartışma: Dereceli Kronik Ağrı Ölçeği 2.0'nin Türkçe versiyonu kronik bel ağrılı hastalar için güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçüm aracıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AĞIL, H. Y., MUAMMER, R. (2023). RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE GRADED CHRONIC PAIN SCALE 2.0. Türk Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 199–207. https://ajindex.com/articles/961519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020;161(9):1976-82
  2. International Association for the Study of Pain. Terminology: pain terms and definitions [Internet]. Washington, D.C.(USA):IASP; 2011. [updated 2011; cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from:
  3. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156(6):1003-7
  4. Raffaeli W, Tenti M, Corraro A, Malafoglia V, Ilari S, Balzani E, et al. Chronic pain: What does it mean? A review on the use of the term chronic pain in clinical practice. J Pain Res. 2021;14:827-35
  5. Mills SEE, Nicolson KP, Smith BH. Chronic pain: a review of its epidemiology and associated factors in population-based studies. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):273-8
  6. Nieminen L, Vuori J, Kankaanpaa M. An early biopsychosocial intervention design for the prevention of low back pain chronicity: A multidisciplinary empirical approach. J Rehabil Med. 2022;54:2723
  7. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50(2):133-49
  8. Von Korff M. Assessment of chronic pain in epidemiological and health services research: Empirical bases and new directions. In Turk DC, Melzack R,eds. Handbook of pain assessment. New York:The Guilford Press. 2011:p 455–73
  9. Uyar M, Köken İ. Neurophysiology of chronic pain. TOTBID Derg. 2017;16(2):70-6
  10. Ahmed I, Ishtiaq S. Reliability and validity: importance in medical research. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(10):2401-6
  11. Souza AC, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017;26(3):649-59
  12. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2014
  13. Ketenci A. Differential diagnosis in low back pain patient. TOTBID Derg. 2017;16(2):118-25
  14. Yakut E, Düger T, Öksüz Ç, Yörükan S, Üreten K, Turan D, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(5):581-5
  15. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H. Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(24):2738-43
  16. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Basic principles