Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain
Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.math.2008.07.005
复制
发表时间：
2009-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Edmondston, Stephen J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
En, Mark Chan Ci;Clair, Dean A.;Edmondston, Stephen J.
本研究的目的是评估颈部残疾指数(NDI)和颈部疼痛与残疾程度量表(NPAD)在慢性非创伤性颈部疼痛患者中的结构和内容效度。20名患者(平均年龄=64.5岁)完成了针对患者的问卷调查，即问题引出技术(PET)，紧随其后的是NDI和NPAD。内容效度评估是通过比较NDI和NPAD的条目与PET中发现的问题来进行的。固定项目问卷的结构效度通过建立彼此之间的相关性以及与PET分数的相关性来检验。患者通过PET发现了11个常见问题，其中6个包括在NDI中，7个包括在NPAD中。NDI与NPAD得分高度相关(r=0.86，p<；0.01)，而PET与固定项目问卷呈中等相关(NDI：r=0.62，p&t；0.01；NPAD：r=0.71，p<；0.01)。NDI和NPAD都包含了这一患者组常见的大部分功能问题，并显示出良好的内容效度。PET能够更好地评估个别患者特有的问题，因此测量的结构与固定项目问卷略有不同。(C)2008爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct and content validity of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) in patients with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain. Twenty patients (mean age = 64.5 years) completed a patient-specific questionnaire, the Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), followed by the NDI and NPAD. Content validity was assessed by comparing the items of the NDI and NPAD with problems identified from the PET. Construct validity of the fixed-item questionnaires was examined by establishing the correlation with each other, and with the PET score. Eleven common problems were identified by patients through the PET, of which six were included in the NDI and seven included in the NPAD. The NDI and NPAD scores were strongly correlated (r = 0.86, p < 0.01), while the correlation between the PET and the fixed-item questionnaires was moderate (NDI: r = 0.62, p < 0.01; NPAD: r = 0.71, p < 0.01). Both the NDI and the NPAD include most of the functional problems common to this patient group, and display good content validity. The PET is better able to evaluate the problems specific to the individual patient and is therefore measuring a somewhat different construct to the fixed-item questionnaires. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.