Validity and reliability of the French version of the STarT Back screening tool for patients with low back pain
Olivier Bruyère1, Maryline Demoulin, Charlotte Beaudart
1Departments of *Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics and †Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Liège, Belgium ‡Réseau d'Epidémiologie Clinique International Francophone (RECIF), Lyon, France §Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom ¶Rheumatology Department, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland; and ‖Physical Rehabilitation, Back Unit, CHU UCL Mont-Godinne-Dinant, Belgium.
Study Design:
Observational prospective study.
Objective:
Our objective was to assess the reliability and validity of the French version of the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST).
Summary Of Background Data:
The SBST is a recently validated tool developed to identify subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) to guide early secondary prevention in primary care.
Methods:
Outpatients 18 years or older with LBP, attending a rehabilitation center, a back school, a private physiotherapy unit, or a fitness center were included. Patients were assessed through the SBST, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 questionnaire, and a pain visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed with Kappa score or the intraclass correlation coefficient, internal consistency of the Psychological subscale with the Cronbach α coefficient, construct validity with the Spearman correlation coefficient, and floor and ceiling effects by percentage frequency of lowest or highest possible score achieved by respondents.
Results:
One hundred eight patients with LBP were included. The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (0.81-0.95). The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.73 showing a good internal consistency for the Psychological subscale. High Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.74 between SBST and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 0.74 between the SBST and Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire were observed. As expected, low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the SBST total score and some dissimilar measures of the Short-Form 36. The lowest possible SBST score was observed for 8 patients (7.4%), whereas only 3 patients (2.8%) had the highest possible SBST score.
Conclusion:
The French version of the SBST is a reliable and valid questionnaire consistent with the original English version. Therefore, this new version may help French-speaking clinicians and scientists to stratify patients with LBP.
Level Of Evidence:
2.
