Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian-Portuguese version

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To translate, cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) short and long versions in Brazilian-Portuguese.

Methods

The ÖMPSQ versions were translated, cross-culturally adapted and pretested in 30 patients with acute and subacute non-specific low back pain. Internal consistency, reproducibility (reliability and agreement), construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects were tested in 100 patients. Construct validity was assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale.

Results

Internal consistency was adequate (ÖMPSQ: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83; ÖMPSQ-short: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72). Reliability was substantial (ÖMPSQ: ICC2,1 0.76; ÖMPSQ-short: 0.78). Standard error of measurement was very good for the ÖMPSQ (5 %) and good for the ÖMPSQ-short (6.7 %); limits of agreement were 13.07 for the ÖMPSQ and 1.37 for the ÖMPSQ-short; and the minimum detectable change was 25.12 for the ÖMPSQ and 15.51 for the ÖMPSQ-short. The ÖMPSQ total score showed a good correlation with the RMDQ (r = 0.73) and the TSK (r = 0.64) and a moderate correlation with pain intensity (current pain: r = 0.36; last 2 weeks: r = 0.37; last episode: r = 0.46). Moreover, ÖMPSQ-short showed a good correlation with RMDQ (r = 0.69) and a moderate correlation with TSK (r = 0.57) and pain (current pain: r = 0.34; last 2 weeks: r = 0.36; last episode: r = 0.54). No ceiling or floor effects were detected in both versions.

Conclusion

The Brazilian-Portuguese ÖMPSQ and ÖMPSQ-short showed acceptable measurement properties and provide evidence that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of ÖMPSQ and ÖMPSQ-short are similar to the original versions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Naghavi, M., Lozano, R., Michaud, C., Ezzati, M., et al. (2012). Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 380(9859), 2163–2196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Murray, C. J., Vos, T., Lozano, R., Naghavi, M., Flaxman, A. D., Michaud, C., et al. (2012). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 380(9859), 2197–2223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Costa Lda, C., Koes, B. W., Pransky, G., Borkan, J., Maher, C. G., & Smeets, R. J. (2013). Primary care research priorities in low back pain: An update. Spine, 38(2), 148–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Melloh, M., Elfering, A., Egli Presland, C., Roeder, C., Barz, T., Rolli Salathe, C., et al. (2009). Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: A review of screening instruments. International Orthopaedics, 33(2), 301–313.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2005). Screening to identify patients at risk: Profiles of psychological risk factors for early intervention. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 21(1), 38–43. discussion 69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Tulder, M., Becker, A., Bekkering, T., Breen, A., del Real, M. T., Hutchinson, A., et al. (2006). Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. European Spine Journal, 15(Suppl 2), S169–S191.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Linton, S. J., & Hallden, K. (1998). Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 14(3), 209–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grotle, M., Vollestad, N. K., & Brox, J. I. (2006). Screening for yellow flags in first-time acute low back pain: Reliability and validity of a Norwegian version of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 22(5), 458–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nonclercq, O., & Berquin, A. (2012). Predicting chronicity in acute back pain: Validation of a French translation of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 55(4), 263–278.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heneweer, H., van Woudenberg, N. J., van Genderen, F., Vanhees, L., & Wittink, H. (2010). Measuring psychosocial variables in patients with (sub) acute low back pain complaints, at risk for chronicity: A validation study of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version. Spine, 35(4), 447–452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan, S. F., Ho, S. M., Poon, K. W., Ip, A., & Cheung, O. Y. (2005). Pilot assessment of pain of orthopaedic patients in Hong Kong. Psychological Reports, 96(2), 527–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Linton, S. J., Nicholas, M., & MacDonald, S. (2011). Development of a short form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Spine, 36(22), 1891–1895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Costa, L. O., Maher, C. G., & Latimer, J. (2007). Self-report outcome measures for low back pain: Searching for international cross-cultural adaptations. Spine, 32(9), 1028–1037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maher, C., Latimer, J., & Costa, L. O. P. (2007). The relevance of cross-cultural adaptation and clinimetrics for physical therapy instruments. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, 11, 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stanton, T. R., Latimer, J., Maher, C. G., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). How do we define the condition ‘recurrent low back pain’? A systematic review. European Spine Journal: Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 19(4), 533–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Linton, S. J., & Boersma, K. (2003). Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: The predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(2), 80–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Costa, L., Maher, C., Latimer, J., Ferreira, P., Pozzi, G., & Ribeiro, R. (2007). Psychometric characteristics of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Functional Rating Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 32(17), 1902–1907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Costa, L. O., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Ferreira, P. H., Ferreira, M. L., Pozzi, G. C., et al. (2008). Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: Which one is the best? Spine, 33(22), 2459–2463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. de Souza, F. S., Marinho Cda, S., Siqueira, F. B., Maher, C. G., & Costa, L. O. (2008). Psychometric testing confirms that the Brazilian-Portuguese adaptations, the original versions of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia have similar measurement properties. Spine, 33(9), 1028–1033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1033–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleiss, J. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chou, R., & Shekelle, P. (2010). Will this patient develop persistent disabling low back pain? Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(13), 1295–1302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by master’s scholarship grant by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP—2012/13768-1 and 2012/22661-6).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Master’s and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448/475, Tatuapé, São Paulo, SP, CEP 03071-000, Brazil

    Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Fernanda Ferreira Fuhro, Ana Carolina Tacollini Manzoni, Naiane Teixeira Bastos de Oliveira & Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral

  2. Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia

    Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

Authors
  1. Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernanda Ferreira Fuhro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Carolina Tacollini Manzoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Naiane Teixeira Bastos de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d

Scoring of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

O Questionário de Triagem de Örebro é um questionário de triagem com o objetivo de predizer incapacidade e falha de retorno ao trabalho devido a fatores psicossociais.

Instruções de pontuação

  • Para a questão 5—contar o número de locais de dor e multiplicar por 2.

  • Para as questões 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 e 20 a pontuação equivale ao número assinalado ou circulado.

  • Para as questões 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 e 25 a pontuação é 10 menos o número assinalado ou circulado.

  • Anote os valores nas caixas separadas ao lado de cada questão

  • Some os valores das questões 5 a 25 obtendo o escore final do questionário.

Interpretação dos resultados

A pontuação do questionário é utilizada como um preditor de incapacidade em longo prazo e falha no retorno ao trabalho, varia de 2 a 210 pontos, com altos valores indicando maiores riscos. Por não haver estudos de validade preditiva na população brasileira, recomendam-se os pontos de corte do instrumento original: baixo risco <90 pontos, médio risco 91 a 150 pontos e alto risco >150 pontos. Entretanto, recomendamos também a avaliação e discussão individual baseadas nos altos valores encontrados em domínios específicos do questionário, enfatizando as necessidades e problemas individuais de cada paciente.

Appendix 2

Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire—short form

figure e
figure f

Scoring of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire—short form

O questionário ÖMPSQ-short é um questionário de triagem com o objetivo de classificar pacientes com dor lombar em baixo e alto risco de cronificação relacionada a fatores psicossociais. A partir deste instrumento, o profissional de saúde será direcionado ao tratamento mais adequado para a condição do paciente.

Instruções de pontuação

  • Para a questão 1—a pontuação vai de 1 a 10.

  • Para as questões 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 e 10 a pontuação equivale ao número assinalado ou circulado.

  • Para as questões 3, 4 e 8 a pontuação é 10 menos o número assinalado ou circulado.

  • Anote os valores nas caixas separadas ao lado de cada questão.

  • Some os valores das questões 1 a 10 obtendo o escore final do questionário.

Interpretação dos resultados

A pontuação do questionário é utilizada como um preditor de afastamento de trabalho e incapacidade, sendo que pacientes que obtiveram a pontuação de 1 a 50 são classificados como baixo risco e de 51 a 100 como pacientes de alto risco. Deve-se notar que como toda ferramenta prognóstica, há a possibilidade de falsos negativos e falsos positivos. É também indicado que os terapeutas, a partir das questões assinaladas, discutam com seus pacientes sobre as questões, com o intuito de entender mais o paciente e direcioná-lo para um tratamento mais eficaz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fagundes, F.R.C., Costa, L.O.P., Fuhro, F.F. et al. Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. Qual Life Res 24, 2777–2788 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0998-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0998-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation