ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the sensory-motor dysfunction questionnaire (SMD-Q-TR) in individuals with spine pain.
methodsThis methodological study included 133 individuals. The 12-question SMD-Q developed to assess sensorimotor dysfunction was translated in accordance with international standards. Pain intensity (neck, low back, back) with the visual analog scale (VAS) and musculoskeletal disorders with the Cornell Musculoskeletal System Discomfort Survey (Cornell) were assessed. For reliability analysis, test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and internal consistency with Cronbach's α value were assessed. For validity analysis, construct and criterion validity analyses were determined with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and correlation tests between the VAS and the Cornell scores, respectively.
resultsThe Cronbach's α value of the SMD-Q-TR was found to be 0.85. The ICC was also found to be 0.749. According to CFA, it was determined that the model-data fit was high and therefore it had structural validity. Moreover, weak positive correlations were found between the total score of the SMD-Q-TR and the Cornell-neck/back/spine scores (rho = 0.281; p = 0.001, rho = 0.215; p = 0.013, rho = 0.368; p < 0.001, respectively), whereas moderate and positive correlations were found between the Cornell-low back/whole body scores (rho = 0.422; p < 0.001, rho = 0.408; p < 0.001, respectively). In addition, weak, positive correlations were found between the SMD-Q-TR total score and the VAS-neck/low back/back scores (rho = 0.202; p = 0.020, rho = 0.317; p < 0.001, rho = 0.209; p = 0.016, respectively).
conclusionThe SMD-Q-TR was found to be valid and reliable in individuals with spine pain. The use of the scale in clinics may contribute to the early evaluation of sensorimotor disorders seen in spinal problems and to direct patients to appropriate preventive and therapeutic methods. In future studies, the sensitivity, minimal clinical significance value, and cut-off score of the SMD-Q-TR can be calculated.
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.