Reliability of the Second and Third Iterations of the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire in a Subclinical Neck Pain Population.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Brain Sciences Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.3390/brainsci15010067
Ushani Ambalavanar, Heidi Haavik, Nitika Kumari, Imran Amjad, Nooshin Khobzi Rotondi, Bernadette Ann Murphy
{"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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
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.
期刊最新文献
The Body as a Vessel for Trauma: The Clinical Case Study of Aisha. EEG-Based ADHD Classification Using Autoencoder Feature Extraction and ResNet with Double Augmented Attention Mechanism. Vigorous Exercise Enhances Verbal Fluency Performance in Healthy Young Adults. Gustatory-Visual Interaction in Human Brain Cortex: fNIRS Study. Exploring the Dimensions of Perfectionism in Adolescence: A Multi-Method Study on Mental Health and CBT-Based Psychoeducation.
×
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