Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Jun 9:10:90.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0230-8.

Difficulties in using Oswestry Disability Index in Indian patients and validity and reliability of translator-assisted Oswestry Disability Index

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Difficulties in using Oswestry Disability Index in Indian patients and validity and reliability of translator-assisted Oswestry Disability Index

Janardhana P Aithala. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background and aim of the study: In Indian patients, in view of language plurality and illiteracy, self-reporting of English version of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is not practical. Our study aim was to find out to what extent self-reporting of ODI was possible and in cases where self-reporting was not possible, to see validity and reliability of a translator-assisted ODI score.

Materials and methods: Fifty patients with low backache and who could not use the English version were assessed with ODI with the use of two translators at a gap of 3 h in a test and retest manner. Patients were also asked to report the most important disabling activity in their day-to-day life.

Results: A total of 58 questionnaires were filled during the study period out of which eight patients (14%) self-reported English version; while 50 patients needed a translator. The Cronbach's alpha between two translators for the ODI scores of 50 patients was 0.866, but aggregate of difference between two scores for each ODI component shows high difference between two translators for question nos. 3, 9, and 10. Cronbach's alpha was best when item no. 3 was deleted (0.875, translator 1; 0.777, translator 2). Thirty-seven people did not answer the question related to sexual activity. Agreement between two values was assessed using Kendall's tau and was found good (0.585, Spearman's coefficient 0.741). Kendall's tau values correlating total ODI score and individual components show that all the items move together, but correlation was poor for question no. 3 (P value 0.16 for translator 2).

Conclusions: Translator-assisted ODI is a good outcome assessment tool in backache assessment in places where validated local language versions are not available, but in Indian patients, inclusion of question nos. 3 and 8 related to weight lifting and sexual function needs to be reviewed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Shows the aggregate of difference between two translators in each of ODI components
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Shows the difference between two translators and average between two translators. (lines above and below 0 mark are set at 5 points and dots above +5 and −5 line indicate difference of more than 5 points between two translators)

References

    1. Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–3. - PubMed
    1. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–52. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fisher K, Johnson M. Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract. 1997;13:67–80. doi: 10.3109/09593989709036449. - DOI
    1. Claire Bombardier. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Summary and General Recommendations. Spine 2000;25(24):3100–10. - PubMed
    1. Lue YJ, Hsieh CL, Huang MH, Lin GT, Lu YM. Development of a Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1. Spine (PhilaPa 1976) 2008;33:2354–60. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818018d8. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types