↓ Skip to main content

Content validity and test-retest reliability of a low back pain questionnaire in Zimbabwean adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physiotherapy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Content validity and test-retest reliability of a low back pain questionnaire in Zimbabwean adolescents
Published in
Archives of Physiotherapy, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40945-017-0031-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Chiwaridzo, Tafadzwa Nicole Chikasha, Nirmala Naidoo, Jermaine Matewu Dambi, Cathrine Tadyanemhandu, Nyaradzai Munambah, Precious Trish Chizanga

Abstract

In Zimbabwe, a recent increase in the volume of research on recurrent non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) has revealed that adolescents are commonly affected. This is alarming to health professionals and parents and calls for serious primary preventative strategies to be developed and implemented forthwith. Early identification initiatives should be prioritised in order to curtail the condition and its progression. In an attempt to be proactive in minimising the prevalence of recurrent NSLBP, this study was conducted to evaluate the content validity and test-retest reliability of a survey questionnaire with the aim of proffering a valid and reliable questionnaire which can be used in non-clinical settings to identify adolescents with recurrent NSLBP in Harare, Zimbabwe and determine the possible factors associated with the condition. The study was conducted in two parts. The first part assessed content validity of the questionnaire using four experts derived from academia and clinical practice. The second part evaluated the reliability of the questionnaire among 125 high school-children aged between 13 and 19 years in a test-retest study. Twenty-six (26) out of thirty questions in the questionnaire had an Item Content Validity index of 1.00, demonstrating complete agreement among content experts. Overall, the Scale Content Validity Index for the questionnaire was 0.97. Item completion for the reliability study was satisfactory. The questionnaire items had kappa values ranging from 0.17 (slight agreement) to 1 (perfect agreement). High levels of reliability were found for the questions on school bag use (k=0.94), sports participation (k=0.97), and lifetime prevalence (k=0.89). Excellent content validity and slight to perfect test-retest reliability was found for the Low Back Pain (LBP) questionnaire. These results are comparable to findings of other studies evaluating the psychometric properties of LBP questionnaires. Cognisant of the limitations of the study, the results of this study suggest that the LBP questionnaire could be used in local studies investigating LBP among adolescents although questions enquiring on functional limitations and sciatica may need further consideration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 36 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Computer Science 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 45 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,850,190
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physiotherapy
#112
of 142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,407
of 310,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physiotherapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them