Ethos Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Apr 1;36(7):581-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d762da.
Cross-sectional design.
To examine and compare the factorial structure of 4 validated neck pain and dysfunction scales.
Neck pain and dysfunction is commonly measured using 1 of 4 validated self-reporting questionnaires: the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale (CNFDS), and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS). Although used interchangeably in the literature, recent studies suggest that the 4 scales differ in the number and type of factors that they examine and the weighting of these factors. To date, there have been no direct comparisons made of these scales when applied simultaneously to the same patient population.
Data were collected from 88 patients with mechanical neck pain who completed all 4 questionnaires. Exploratory principal components factor analyses were conducted to expose the underlying factors within each of the scales. Identified factors were examined, characterized, and compared.
Factor analysis revealed a single factor for the NDI, 2 factors for the NPQ, and 3 factors for both the CNFDS and NPDS. Factors identified include neck pain, dysfunction related to general activities, neck-specific function, cognition, emotion, and the influence of participation restriction on psychosocial functioning. The 3 NPDS factors appear to assess the multidimensional nature of neck pain and dysfunction most comprehensively.
When selecting and interpreting a neck pain and dysfunction scale, clinicians and researchers are encouraged to take into account the factors measured by the NDI, NPQ, CNFDS, and NPDS and their applicability to the specific neck patient population under examination. The decision of which factors are of greatest interest will influence the selection of an appropriate outcome instrument.
横断面设计。
检验和比较 4 种已验证的颈部疼痛和功能障碍量表的因子结构。
颈部疼痛和功能障碍通常使用 4 种已验证的自我报告问卷之一进行测量:颈部残疾指数(NDI)、Northwick Park 颈部疼痛问卷(NPQ)、哥本哈根颈部功能障碍量表(CNFDS)和颈部疼痛和残疾量表(NPDS)。尽管在文献中可互换使用,但最近的研究表明,这 4 种量表在它们检查的因子数量和类型以及这些因子的权重方面存在差异。迄今为止,当同时应用于相同的患者人群时,尚未对这些量表进行直接比较。
数据来自 88 名患有机械性颈部疼痛的患者,他们完成了所有 4 种问卷。进行了探索性主成分因子分析,以揭示每个量表中潜在的因素。检查、描述和比较了确定的因素。
因子分析显示 NDI 为单一因子,NPQ 为 2 个因子,CNFDS 和 NPDS 均为 3 个因子。确定的因子包括颈部疼痛、与一般活动相关的功能障碍、颈部特定功能、认知、情绪以及参与限制对心理社会功能的影响。NPDS 的 3 个因子似乎最全面地评估了颈部疼痛和功能障碍的多维性质。
在选择和解释颈部疼痛和功能障碍量表时,临床医生和研究人员应考虑 NDI、NPQ、CNFDS 和 NPDS 测量的因素及其对特定颈部患者人群的适用性。哪些因素最感兴趣的决定将影响适当结果工具的选择。