Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a cross-culturally adapted questionnaire, the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck).

Methods

The COMI-neck was cross-culturally adapted for the Italian language using established procedures. The following psychometric properties of the instrument were then assessed in patients with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation: test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity by comparing COMI-neck with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical pain rating scale, and the EuroQol-Five Dimension (Pearson’s correlations); and responsiveness by means of Standardized Response Mean (SRM), unpaired t tests, and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 103 subjects. The COMI-neck summary score displayed no relevant floor or ceiling effects. Test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.87). With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent with the scores of the reference questionnaires (r = 0.40–0.80). The mean change scores for the Italian COMI-neck differed significantly between patients with a good global outcome and those with a poor outcome (p = 0.002); SRM for the good outcome group was 1.23, and for the poor outcome group 0.40. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.62–0.85).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that the Italian version of the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cotè P, van der Velde G, Cassidy D, Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Holm LW et al (2008) The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(Suppl):S60–S74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Holm LW, Cassidy JD, Guzman J et al (2008) The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(Suppl):S39–S51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, Melloh M, Munting E, Tuschel A, Aebi M, Roder C (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):312–320

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923–1930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fankhauser CD, Mutter U, Aghayev E, Mannion AF (2012) Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J 21(1):101–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, Luca A, Zaina F, Negrini S, Schulz PJ (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S737–S749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Baird AC, Darden BV 2nd (1999) Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale: item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(13):1290–1294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Nido N, Righini C, Tomba A, Giovanazzi E (2008) Development of the Italian version of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, NPDS-I. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(13):E429–E434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Savoia E, Fantini MP, Pandolfi PP, Dallolio L, Collina N (2006) Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:47

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Prieto L, Sacristan JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huskinson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Revicki D, Hay RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2006) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53:459–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204–1217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beurskens AJHM, de Vet HCW, Koke AJA (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the physiotherapists and the patients who took part in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Operative Unit of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Scientific Institute of Lissone, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, Institute of Care and Research (IRCCS), Via Monsignor Bernasconi, 16, 20035, Lissone (Milan), Italy

    Marco Monticone & Serena Maggioni

  2. Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Simona Ferrante

  3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Santa Corona Hospital, Pietra Ligure, Italy

    Gisel Grenat & Giovanni A. Checchia

  4. Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Riabilitazione, Genetica, Oftalmologia e Scienze Materno-Infantili, Genova University, Savona, Italy

    Marco Testa

  5. Department of Orthopaedics, Regional Hospital, Legnano, Italy

    Marco G. Teli

  6. Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland

    Anne F. Mannion

Authors
  1. Marco Monticone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simona Ferrante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serena Maggioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gisel Grenat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giovanni A. Checchia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Testa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marco G. Teli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anne F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Monticone.

Additional information

IRB approval

Our Institutional Review Board approved the research and the study was conducted in conformity with ethical and humane principles of research.

Appendices

Appendix 1: English version of the COMI-neck

Neck problems can lead to neck pain and/or pain in the arm/shoulder region, as well as to sensory disturbances such as tingling, ‘pins and needles’, or numbness in any of these regions.

For the following 2 questions (1a and 1b), we would like you to indicate the severity of your pain, by marking a cross on the line from 0 to 10 (where “0” = no pain, “10” = the worst pain you can imagine).

Appendix 2: Italian version of the COMI-neck

I problemi al collo possono portare a dolori alla zona cervicale e/o alle spalle ed alle braccia, oltre che a disturbi come formicolio, puntura di aghi e spilli o riduzione della sensibilità in una di queste regioni.

Nelle prossime 2 domande (1a e 1b) indichi l’intensità del suo dolore, segnando una croce sulla linea da 0 a 10 (dove 0 = nessun dolore, 10 = il dolore più forte che lei possa immaginare).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monticone, M., Ferrante, S., Maggioni, S. et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J 23, 863–872 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3092-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3092-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation