↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: an exposure-specific measurement for back pain patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: an exposure-specific measurement for back pain patients
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s92615
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Riecke, Sebastian Holzapfel, Winfried Rief, Harald Lachnit, Julia A Glombiewski

Abstract

Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing. The purpose of the present study was to examine reliability and validity of a cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in a context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of graded in vivo exposure in chronic low back pain patients. The QBPDS is one of the most widely used disease-specific disability questionnaires. In particular, for cognitive behavioral treatments with a clear focus on behavioral aspects such as graded in vivo exposure, the QBPDS provides an ascertained strategy with a sound conceptual basis and excellent quality criteria. Nevertheless, there is conflicting evidence concerning factor structure and a German adaption is missing. The cross-cultural adaption followed international guidelines. Psychometric testing was performed using data from 180 participants with chronic low back pain. The psychometric analyses included internal consistency, convergent, and divergent validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure. The QBPDS showed strong psychometric properties, with high internal consistency for the full scale (α=0.94) and good convergent and divergent validity. The factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution (bending, ambulation, brief effortful movements, and long-lasting postures). The translation and cross-cultural adaption of the QBPDS into German was successful. The German version proved to be a valid and reliable instrument and is well suited for use in the context of an exposure-based psychological treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#750
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,735
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.