Testes clinimétricos de dois instrumentos que mensuram atitudes e crenças de profissionais de saúde sobre a dor lombar crônica

Maurício Oliveira Magalhães, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, M. L. Ferreira, Luciana A. C. Machado
{"title":"Testes clinimétricos de dois instrumentos que mensuram atitudes e crenças de profissionais de saúde sobre a dor lombar crônica","authors":"Maurício Oliveira Magalhães, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, M. L. Ferreira, Luciana A. C. Machado","doi":"10.1590/S1413-35552011000300012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: There are no clinimetrically tested instruments for measuring attitudes and beliefs of health care providers with regards to chronic low back pain in Brazil. OBJECTIVES: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and the PABS.PT. METHODS: The PABS.PT was cross-culturally adapted following the recommendations of current guidelines. The PABS.PT and the HC-PAIRS were clinimetrically tested in 100 physical therapists who routinely treat patients with low back pain in their clinical practice. The internal consistency, construct validity and ceiling and floor effects were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. RESULTS: Both scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.67 to 0.74). Their reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 ranging from 0.70 to 0.84; Standard Error of the Measurement ranging from 3.48 to 5.06). The validity coefficients of the scales ranged from weak to moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.19 to 0.62). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate that both PABS.PT and HC-PAIRS are reproducible scales for the measurement of attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain in Brazilian physical therapists.","PeriodicalId":21195,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira De Fisioterapia","volume":"81 1","pages":"249-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira De Fisioterapia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552011000300012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are no clinimetrically tested instruments for measuring attitudes and beliefs of health care providers with regards to chronic low back pain in Brazil. OBJECTIVES: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and the PABS.PT. METHODS: The PABS.PT was cross-culturally adapted following the recommendations of current guidelines. The PABS.PT and the HC-PAIRS were clinimetrically tested in 100 physical therapists who routinely treat patients with low back pain in their clinical practice. The internal consistency, construct validity and ceiling and floor effects were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. RESULTS: Both scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.67 to 0.74). Their reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 ranging from 0.70 to 0.84; Standard Error of the Measurement ranging from 3.48 to 5.06). The validity coefficients of the scales ranged from weak to moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.19 to 0.62). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate that both PABS.PT and HC-PAIRS are reproducible scales for the measurement of attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain in Brazilian physical therapists.
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
测量卫生专业人员对慢性腰痛的态度和信念的两种仪器的临床试验
背景:在巴西,没有临床测试的工具来测量卫生保健提供者对慢性腰痛的态度和信念。目的:将物理治疗师疼痛态度和信念量表(PABS.PT)翻译成巴西-葡萄牙语并进行跨文化调整,并测试巴西-葡萄牙语版本的卫生保健提供者疼痛和损害关系量表(HC-PAIRS)和PABS.PT的临床特性。方法:PABS。PT是根据现行指南的建议进行跨文化适应的。绝压。PT和HC-PAIRS在100名物理治疗师中进行了临床测试,这些治疗师在临床实践中经常治疗腰痛患者。内部一致性、结构效度和天花板和地板效应仅使用参与者的基线值进行测试,而再现性在间隔7天的测试-重测试设计中进行评估。结果:两个量表都显示出足够的内部一致性水平(Cronbach's alpha范围为0.67至0.74)。它们的重现性从中等到相当(类内相关系数2,1为0.70 ~ 0.84;测量标准误差范围为3.48 ~ 5.06)。量表的效度系数从弱到中等(Pearson相关系数为0.19 ~ 0.62)。没有检测到天花板或地板效应。结论:本研究结果表明,两种PABS均具有良好的治疗效果。PT和HC-PAIRS是巴西物理治疗师对慢性腰痛的态度和信念测量的可重复量表。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the use of Kinect technology as a therapeutic alternative to improve physical capacities in older adults Results of the application of pulmonary physiotherapy in a 38-year-old post-COVID19 patient after severe pneumonia and type 2 diabetes mellitus Application of neurohabilitation therapy in a six-month-old pediatric patient as a treatment for neurodevelopmental delay (clinical case) Estudio comparativo entre el índice de masa corporal y el control postural en alumnos sanos de la carrera de Terapia Física de la Universidad Politécnica de Pachuca Acompañamiento terapéutico para la aceptación o rechazo de una prótesis: Caso de paciente infantil con amputación de miembro superior izquierdo
×
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