Development of the Hausa version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophizing has been recognized as an important contributor to chronicity in individuals with chronic pain syndromes including low back pain (LBP). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is perhaps the most widely used tool to evaluate the degree of pain catastrophizing. However, its use is limited in Hausa-speaking countries due to the lack of a validated translated version. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Hausa (Hausa-PCS), and evaluate its psychometric properties in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: The PCS was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Hausa in accordance with established guidelines. To evaluate its psychometric properties, a consecutive sample of 200 patients with chronic LBP was recruited from urban and rural Nigerian hospitals. Validity was evaluated by exploring content validity, factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]), construct validity (Spearman's rho for a priori hypotheses) and known-groups validity. Reliability was evaluated by calculating internal consistency (Cronbach's α), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and limits of agreement with 95% confidence interval (LOA95%). RESULTS: The Hausa-PCS was comprehensible with good content validity. The CFA confirmed a 3-factor structure similar to the original English version. The concurrent validity was supported as 83% (5/6) of the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. Known-groups comparison showed that the questionnaire was unable to differentiate between male and female or urban and rural patients (p > 0.05). Internal consistency and ICC were adequate for the Hausa-PCS total score (α = 0.84; ICC = 0.90) and the subscale helplessness (α = 0.78; ICC = 0.89) but for the subscales rumination (α = 0.69; ICC = 0.68) and magnification (α = 0.41; ICC = 0.43). The LOA95% for the Hausa-PCS total score was between - 8.10 and + 9.75, with SEM and MDC of 3.47 and 9.62 respectively. CONCLUSION: The Hausa-PCS was successfully developed and psychometrically adequate in terms of factorial structure, construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability when applied in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic LBP. However, the internal consistency and reliability coefficients (ICC) for the individual subscales are inadequate. Thus, we support the use of the total score when evaluating pain catastrophizing for clinical or research purposes.

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Hausa Version of the Oswestry Disability Index 2.1a for Patients With Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Validation of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To translate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.1a into Hausa Language and to validate its use in a cohort of patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ODI is one of the most commonly used condition-specific questionnaires for assessing functional disability in patients with LBP, yet, no formal cross-culturally adapted and validated Hausa version exists. METHODS: The Hausa version of the ODI 2.1a (ODI-H) was developed according to established guidelines. Validation was performed among 200 patients with LBP recruited from both rural and urban Nigeria. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability by computing intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the ODI-H with Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and finger-floor distance test. Divergent validity was assessed by correlating the ODI-H with age, educational level, and occupational status. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis were also performed. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed with three models: 1) one-factor theory-driven model, 2) two-factor theory-driven model (dynamic and static factors), and 3) a model based on our EFA. RESULTS: The ODI-H had high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.87) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient  = 0.937) with standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change being 3.69 and 10.2 respectively. The construct validity (convergent and divergent validity) is supported as all (6:6, 100%) the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. The EFA yielded a two-factor model explaining 54.3% of the total variance but demonstrated poor fit. The one-factor and two-factor theory-driven model had acceptable fit but the one-factor theory-driven model was better. CONCLUSION: The ODI-H version 2.1a was transculturally equivalent, reliable, and valid tool for assessing functional disability among Hausa-speaking patients with LBP. The use of this tool can be recommended for future clinical and research purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.