4.4 Article

The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into Turkish assessing its psychometric properties

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 38, Issue 20-21, Pages 2153-2160

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1114034

Keywords

reliability; the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire; Turkey; validity; work-related disorder

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to linguistically and culturally adapt the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) for use in Turkey, and to examine the psychometric properties of this adapted version. Method: The cross-cultural adaptation was achieved by translating the items from the original version, with back-translation performed by independent mother-tongue translators, followed by committee review. Reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) was examined for 198 participants who completed the NMQ twice (with a 1 week interval). Construct validity was examined with data from 126 participants from the same population, who completed further four questionnaires related to the body regions described in the NMQ. Results: The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.896). The test-retest reliability was examined with the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) and all items showed moderate to almost perfect reliability (PABAK = 0.57-0.90). Participants with a musculoskeletal problem in a related region had significantly more disability/pain, as assessed by the relevant questionnaires (p < 0.001), indicating that the NMQ had a good construct validity. Conclusions: This study provided considerable evidence that the Turkish version of the NMQ has appropriate psychometric properties, including good test retest reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. It can be used for screening and epidemiological investigations of musculoskeletal symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available