{"title":"Reliability of the Second and Third Iterations of the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire in a Subclinical Neck Pain Population.","authors":"Ushani Ambalavanar, Heidi Haavik, Nitika Kumari, Imran Amjad, Nooshin Khobzi Rotondi, Bernadette Ann Murphy","doi":"10.3390/brainsci15010067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>This study aimed to address limitations of the pilot reliability study on the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire (SMD-Q) in two parts. Part 1 evaluated the intra-rater reliability of SMD-Q version 2 (V2). Part 2 addressed V2's limitations before assessing the intra-rater reliability of version 3 (V3). V2 framed questions as \"over the past week\", whereas V3 also framed questions as \"in a typical/usual week\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The SMD-Q was administered via Qualtrics<sup>TM</sup> at baseline and 4 to 7 days later to subclinical neck pain participants, 51 in part 1 (32 F; mean age ± SD: 21.17 ± 2.66 y) and 27 in part 2 (20 F; mean age ± SD: 21.89 ± 2.81 y). Reliability statistics (quadratic weighted kappa (K<sub>w</sub>) and Cronbach's alpha (α)) were calculated for all items (V2) and total scores (V2 and V3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was excellent agreement for V2 total scores (K<sub>w</sub> ≥ 0.75), and V3 total scores for \"in a typical/usual week\" (K<sub>w</sub> ≥ 0.75), but fair to good agreement for V3 total scores of \"over the past week\" (0.40 < K<sub>w</sub> < 0.75). V2 had acceptable (0.7 ≤ α < 0.8) to good internal consistency (0.8 ≤ α < 0.9), while V3 had good internal consistency for both administrations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Versions 2 and 3 of the SMD-Q appear to reliably capture disordered sensorimotor integration in people with subclinical neck pain, with improved reliability in V3 when questions are framed as \"in a typical/usual week\". However, further research is needed to confirm this finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15010067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/objectives: This study aimed to address limitations of the pilot reliability study on the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire (SMD-Q) in two parts. Part 1 evaluated the intra-rater reliability of SMD-Q version 2 (V2). Part 2 addressed V2's limitations before assessing the intra-rater reliability of version 3 (V3). V2 framed questions as "over the past week", whereas V3 also framed questions as "in a typical/usual week".
Methods: The SMD-Q was administered via QualtricsTM at baseline and 4 to 7 days later to subclinical neck pain participants, 51 in part 1 (32 F; mean age ± SD: 21.17 ± 2.66 y) and 27 in part 2 (20 F; mean age ± SD: 21.89 ± 2.81 y). Reliability statistics (quadratic weighted kappa (Kw) and Cronbach's alpha (α)) were calculated for all items (V2) and total scores (V2 and V3).
Results: There was excellent agreement for V2 total scores (Kw ≥ 0.75), and V3 total scores for "in a typical/usual week" (Kw ≥ 0.75), but fair to good agreement for V3 total scores of "over the past week" (0.40 < Kw < 0.75). V2 had acceptable (0.7 ≤ α < 0.8) to good internal consistency (0.8 ≤ α < 0.9), while V3 had good internal consistency for both administrations.
Conclusions: Versions 2 and 3 of the SMD-Q appear to reliably capture disordered sensorimotor integration in people with subclinical neck pain, with improved reliability in V3 when questions are framed as "in a typical/usual week". However, further research is needed to confirm this finding.
期刊介绍:
Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.