The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinimetric Testing of Three Self-report Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Patients in Brazil: Which One Is the Best?
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and clinimetric testing of self-report outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this investigation were to perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to perform a head-to-head comparison of the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the PSFS, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Functional Rating Index (FRI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, there is no Brazilian-Portuguese version of the PSFS available and no head-to-head comparison of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the PSFS, RMDQ, and FRI has been undertaken. METHODS: The PSFS was translated and adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese. The PSFS, the RMDQ, and the FRI were administered to 99 patients with low back pain to evaluate internal consistency, reproducibility, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, internal and external responsiveness. To fully test the construct validity and external responsiveness of these measures, it was necessary to cross-culturally adapt the Pain Numerical Rating Scale and the Global Perceived Effect Scale. RESULTS: All measures demonstrated high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha range = 0.88-0.90) and reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 2,1 range = 0.85-0.94). High correlations among the disability-related measures were observed (Pearson's r ranging from 0.51 to 0.71). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. The PSFS was consistently more responsive than the other measures in both the internal responsiveness and external responsiveness analyses. CONCLUSION: The results from this study demonstrate that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the RMDQ, the FRI and the PSFS have similar clinimetric properties to each other and to the original English versions. Of allthe measures tested in this study the PSFS seems the most responsive. These measures will enable international comparisons to be performed, and encourage researchers to include Portuguese speakers in their clinical trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 · Cited by 14,542
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
A Study of the Natural History of Back Pain: Part I
ROLAND, M., & MORRIS, R. (1983) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 · Cited by 3,395
Cited by
Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163 · Cited by 1,458
Self-citationMotor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial
Costa, L. O. P., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Hodges, P. W., Herbert, R. D., Refshauge, K. M., McAuley, J. H., & Jennings, M. D. (2009) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090218 · Cited by 312
Self-citationAhern, M. M., Dean, L. V., Stoddard, C. C., Agrawal, A., Kim, K., Cook, C. E., & Narciso Garcia, A. (2020) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/papr.12885 · Cited by 108
Garcia, A. N., Costa, L. D. C. M., Hancock, M. J., Souza, F. S. D., Gomes, G. V. F. D. O., Almeida, M. O. D., & Costa, L. O. P. (2018) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097327 · Cited by 73
Self-citationMagalhães, M. O., Muzi, L. H., Comachio, J., Burke, T. N., Renovato França, F. J., Vidal Ramos, L. A., Leão Almeida, G. P., de Moura Campos Carvalho-e-Silva, A. P., & Marques, A. P. (2015) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2015.02.004 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Costa, L. O. P., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Ferreira, P. H., Ferreira, M. L., Pozzi, G. C., & Freitas, L. M. A.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2459-2463
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1973563316
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinimetric Testing of Three Self-report Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Patients in Brazil: Which One Is the Best? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181849dbe
- The paper
- Costa, L. O. P., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Ferreira, P. H., Ferreira, M. L., Pozzi, G. C., & Freitas, L. M. A. (2008). Clinimetric Testing of Three Self-report Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Patients in Brazil: Which One Is the Best? Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181849dbe
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
