Translation and Validation of Low Back Pain Knowledge Questionnaire Among Hindi-Speaking Indian Women

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem encountered among women worldwide. This research aimed at the cross-cultural translation, adaptation, and equivalence assessment of the Low Back Pain Knowledge Questionnaire (LBPKQ) in the Hindi language. The LBPKQ, originally in English (E-LBPKQ) was translated and validated in the Hindi language (H-LBPKQ). The forward-backward procedure was adapted from the recommended guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of measures. Psychometric properties of the H-LBPKQ were evaluated among 250 Hindi-speaking Indian women with LBP. Test-retest reliability was evaluated in the first 161 participants of the study sample. The overall LBPKQ scores obtained a mean of 3.1 ± 1.1. The internal consistency was excellent for both E-LBPKQ and H-LBPKQ, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.983 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–0.986) and 0.975 (95% CI, 0.970–0.979), respectively. Construct validity was good, with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.892 for E-LBPKQ and 0.852 for H-LBPKQ. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (P < .0001) was significant for E-LBPKQ and H-LBPKQ. Two factors were extracted through principal component analysis. The H-LBPKQ is valid and reliable to assess LBP knowledge among Hindi speaking population. Low LBPKQ scores indicate poor LBP knowledge; hence, LBP sensitization is needed among Indian women.

Keywords:

• Low back pain
• cross-cultural
• psychometrics
• principal component analysis
• test-retest reliability
• women

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to all the women who volunteered to participate in this study and to Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company for funding this study. We thank Professor Jamil Natour for giving consent for the LBPKQ translation. We also thank Mr Manish Kumar Singh, senior biostatistician, Clinical Research, Medanta, The Medicity, Gurgaon, India, for his valuable inputs in statistical analysis.

Declaration of conflicting interests

There were no conflicts of interest as reported by all the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by a grant program from Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company, New York, NY, USA 10017.