Sensitivity to change of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale

The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) is a 20-item instrument to measure neck pain and related disability. The aim of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of the NPAD. A total of 411 participants from 15 general practices in the middle of Germany completed a multidimensional questionnaire including the German version of the NPAD and self-reported demographic and clinical information. Sensitivity to change was analysed by linear regression analysis of the NPAD at follow-up and educational level, age class, depression, anxiety, and deficits in social support, respectively, and by Pearson’s correlation analyses between mean change in NPAD at follow-up and mean change in prognostic markers. Those having more than basic education (regression coefficient −7.2, p < 0.001) and/or being in a younger age class (−2.9, p = 0.020) consistently reported significantly lower average NPAD scores at follow-up compared to those with basic education and/or a older age class. In contrast, those who were classified to be depressed (regression coefficient 2.1, p < 0.001), anxious (1.9, p < 0.001), or having deficits in social support (5.5, p = 0.004) reported significantly higher NPAD scores. Change in depression, anxiety, and social support scale between baseline and follow-up was significantly correlated with change in the NPAD score. Hence, these data are in the direction anticipated across all baseline factors investigated. In conclusion, the NPAD seems to be a sensitive measure for use in clinical practice and future studies of neck pain and related disability

Neck Pain and Disability Scale and the Neck Disability Index: reproducibility of the Dutch Language Versions

The first aim of this study was to translate the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) from English into Dutch producing the NPAD–Dutch Language Version (DLV). The second aim was to analyze test–retest reliability and agreement of the NPAD–DLV and the Neck Disability Index (NDI)–DLV. The NPAD was translated according to established guidelines. Thirty-four patients (mean age 37.5 years, 68% female) with chronic neck pain (CNP), within an outpatient rehabilitation setting, participated in this study. The NPAD–DLV and the NDI–DLV were filled out twice with a mean test–retest interval of 18 days. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the NPAD–DLV was 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57–0.87) and of the NDI–DLV 0.84 (95% CI 0.69–0.92). The limits of agreement of the NPAD–DLV and the NDI–DLV were, respectively, ±20.9 (scale 0–100) and ±6.5 (scale 0–50). The reliability of the NPAD–DLV and the NDI–DLV was acceptable for patients with CNP. The variation (‘instability’) in the NPAD–DLV total scores was relatively large and larger than the variation of the NDI–DLV

Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several disease-specific questionnaires to measure pain and disability in patients with neck pain have been translated. However, a simple translation of the original version doesn't guarantee similar measurement properties. The objective of this study is to critically appraise the quality of the translation process, cross-cultural validation and the measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Bibliographic databases were searched for articles concerning the translation or evaluation of the measurement properties of a translated version of a neck-specific questionnaire. The methodological quality of the selected studies and the results of the measurement properties were critically appraised and rated using the COSMIN checklist and criteria for measurement properties.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search strategy resulted in a total of 3641 unique hits, of which 27 articles, evaluating 6 different questionnaires in 15 different languages, were included in this study. Generally the methodological quality of the translation process is poor and none of the included studies performed a cross-cultural adaptation. A substantial amount of information regarding the measurement properties of translated versions of the different neck-specific questionnaires is lacking. Moreover, the evidence for the quality of measurement properties of the translated versions is mostly limited or assessed in studies of poor methodological quality.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Until results from high quality studies are available, we advise to use the Catalan, Dutch, English, Iranian, Korean, Spanish and Turkish version of the NDI, the Chinese version of the NPQ, and the Finnish, German and Italian version of the NPDS. The Greek NDI needs cross-cultural validation and there is no methodologically sound information for the Swedish NDI. For all other languages we advise to translate the original version of the NDI.</p