ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
Rasch analysis of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire: Turkish version, validity, and reliability study
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The multidimensional evaluation of patients with chronic neck pain is important for planning the treatment program. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire (NBQ). Materials and methods: The internal construct validity of the NBQ was examined by the fit of the data to the Rasch measurement model. External validity of the NBQ was evaluated by testing for expected associations of Rasch transformed NBQ score with the corresponding variables through the process of convergent validity. The reliability of the NBQ in terms of both internal consistency and test-retest reliability was assessed by the person separation index (PSI) and differential item functioning (DIF) by time effect. Results: It was determined that the questionnaire has 2 factors. None of the items of Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) showed DIF. The reliability of F1 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89, PSI = 0.87) and F2 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77, PSI = 0.87) was good with Cronbach’s alpha and PSI. There was a good correlation between NBQ/F1 and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) (r = 0.673) and Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS) (r = 0.709). Also, there was a correlation between NBQ/F2 and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (r = 0.552) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (r = 0.410). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire is valid and reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.