Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1177/01632787241307031
Sezin Solum, Ender Salbaş
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).","authors":"Sezin Solum, Ender Salbaş","doi":"10.1177/01632787241307031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) is a 15-item scale designed to assess low back pain (LBP) through self-efficacy, a key predictor of functional recovery. This study aimed to culturally adapt and evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of LoBACS in patients with LBP. The translation and adaptation followed Beaton et al.'s protocol. Content and face validity were assessed with a pre-patient group. Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to evaluate construct validity. Internal consistency, as well as test-retest reliability, were evaluated in a sample of 150 patients aged 18-70 years. Concurrent validity was measured alongside the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Two factors emerged from factor analysis, with item loadings for Functional Self-efficacy (FnSE) ranging from 0.745 to 0.896 and for Self-Regulatory and Exercise Self-efficacy (Self-Reg&ExSE) from 0.817 to 0.940. Cronbach's alpha was high for FnSE, Self-Reg&ExSE, and the total scale (α = 0.941). Total correlation for each item ranged between 0.770 and 0.925. Test-retest reliability was also high (r = 0.941, <i>p</i> < .01). LoBACS showed moderate agreement with ODQ and QBPDS, demonstrating concurrent validity. In conclusion, the Turkish version of LoBACS is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LBP-related self-efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787241307031"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241307031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS) is a 15-item scale designed to assess low back pain (LBP) through self-efficacy, a key predictor of functional recovery. This study aimed to culturally adapt and evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of LoBACS in patients with LBP. The translation and adaptation followed Beaton et al.'s protocol. Content and face validity were assessed with a pre-patient group. Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to evaluate construct validity. Internal consistency, as well as test-retest reliability, were evaluated in a sample of 150 patients aged 18-70 years. Concurrent validity was measured alongside the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Two factors emerged from factor analysis, with item loadings for Functional Self-efficacy (FnSE) ranging from 0.745 to 0.896 and for Self-Regulatory and Exercise Self-efficacy (Self-Reg&ExSE) from 0.817 to 0.940. Cronbach's alpha was high for FnSE, Self-Reg&ExSE, and the total scale (α = 0.941). Total correlation for each item ranged between 0.770 and 0.925. Test-retest reliability was also high (r = 0.941, p < .01). LoBACS showed moderate agreement with ODQ and QBPDS, demonstrating concurrent validity. In conclusion, the Turkish version of LoBACS is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LBP-related self-efficacy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土耳其版腰背部活动信心量表(LoBACS)的效度和信度。
腰背活动信心量表(LoBACS)是一个15项的量表,旨在通过自我效能来评估腰痛(LBP),这是功能恢复的关键预测指标。本研究旨在文化适应和评估土耳其版LoBACS在LBP患者中的有效性和可靠性。翻译和改编遵循Beaton等人的协议。内容和面部效度与患者前组进行评估。采用探索性因子分析(EFA)和验证性因子分析(CFA)来评估构念效度。对150名年龄在18-70岁的患者样本进行了内部一致性和重测信度评估。并发效度与Oswestry背痛失能问卷(ODQ)和魁北克背痛失能量表(QBPDS)一起测量。因子分析得出两个因子,功能自我效能(FnSE)的项目负荷范围为0.745 ~ 0.896,自我调节和运动自我效能(Self-Reg&ExSE)的项目负荷范围为0.817 ~ 0.940。FnSE、Self-Reg&ExSE和总量表的Cronbach’s alpha值较高(α = 0.941)。每个项目的总相关性在0.770和0.925之间。重测信度也较高(r = 0.941, p < 0.01)。LoBACS与ODQ和QBPDS具有中等一致性,具有并发效度。综上所述,土耳其版的LoBACS是测量lbp相关自我效能感的有效和可靠的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Reliability and Validity of Turkish Translation of the Questionnaire of Physiotherapeutic Specific Exercises of Scoliosis (QPSSE): A Brief Report. The Dual Effect of Work Rumination in the Relationship Between Challenge Stress and Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model of Information Literacy. Acknowledgement of Reviewers for 2024. Commentary: Review of Mandatory Maintenance of Certification in the USA. Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1