Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 56
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
J Res Med Sci 2020,  25:74

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire into persian language and the assessment of reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain


1 Musculoskeletal Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran University of Medical, Tehran, Iran
2 Director of Modern Physiotherapy, Specialist Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist as Awarded by Australian College of Physiotherapist. Lecturer and Faculty Staff of Manual Concepts, Australia
3 Musculoskeletal Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
4 Department of Physical Therapy, Musculoskeletal Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Submission04-Aug-2019
Date of Decision16-Dec-2019
Date of Acceptance10-Mar-2020
Date of Web Publication27-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abdolkarim Karimi
Department of Physical Therapy, Musculoskeletal Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_386_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Chronic low back pain (LBP) causes some neuroplastic changes in the brain, which result in body perception impairment. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is a suggested tool for the diagnosis and evaluation of back perception in people with LBP. The aim of this study is to translate and cross culturally adapt the FreBAQ into Persian language and to assess its reliability and validity in patients with chronic LBP (CLBP). Materials and Methods: Fifty people with CLBP and fifty healthy people participated in this study. To evaluate the discriminant validity, we assessed the ability of the FreBAQ to discriminate between people with and without LBP. After an interval of 1 week, 25 patients with CLBP completed the questionnaire in the retest session. Data obtained from the first test administration were used for internal consistency and data obtained from repeated testing were used for test–retest reliability. Construct validity was assessed by investigating a correlation between the FreBAQ with the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Visual Analog Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. In addition, the construct validity of Persian FreBAQ was measured by factor analysis. Results: The test–retest reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed by intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96. Cronbach's alpha was 0.74 for Persian FreBAQ. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change were 0.91 and 2.52, respectively. Construct validity was demonstrated by statistically significant relationship between the Persian FreBAQ and questionnaires of PCS (P < 0.001) and RDQ (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The Persian version of FreBAQ is a valid and reliable measurement tool for evaluating back perception changes in Persian-speaking patients with LBP.

Keywords: Body image, Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire, Persian, reliability, validity


How to cite this article:
Mahmoudzadeh A, Abbaszadeh S, Baharlouei H, Karimi A. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire into persian language and the assessment of reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain. J Res Med Sci 2020;25:74

How to cite this URL:
Mahmoudzadeh A, Abbaszadeh S, Baharlouei H, Karimi A. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire into persian language and the assessment of reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain. J Res Med Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 30];25:74. Available from: https://www.jmsjournal.net/text.asp?2020/25/1/74/291012




  Introduction Top


Sixty to eighty percent of people experience low back pain (LBP) at some stage in their life.[1] Most LBP resolves in a short time, but about 80%–90% of attacks resolve in about 6 weeks. Up to 85% of the remaining sufferers may progress to chronic, recurrent symptoms.[2] Chronicity and recurrence of LBP may affect people's lives adversely, causing activity limitation, particularly in people below the age of 45 years.[2] A body of evidence discussed the mechanism of chronicity of LBP.[3],[4],[5],[6] Chronic pain has been attributed to abnormal nociceptive/antinociceptive function at different levels in the central nervous system.[7]

Chronic pain may cause changes in different parts of the brain, similar to those detected in patients suffering from phantom limb pain.[8],[9] The neuroplastic changes include structural, chemical, and functional changes.[10],[11],[12] The study of brain morphology in chronic LBP (CLBP) patients shows reduced gray matter volume in somatosensory cortex, brainstem, and right anterior thalamus regions, resembling brain atrophy in these areas.[13],[14],[15],[16] Chemical changes occur with ion channel reorganization and neurotransmitter alteration.[17],[18],[19] One of the clinical manifestations of the functional reorganization of cortical areas is body perception impairment.[10],[20],[21]

An individual's sense of body is called body perception.[20] The disturbed tactile acuity, proprioception,[22],[23] and the position of the body in space[24] are the result of the change in body perception. In addition, the decline of it causes poor graphaesthesia,[25] inaccuracy in localizing tactile stimuli on the back,[26] decreased motor imagery,[27] and altered size perception and awareness of the back[28] in people with CLBP.

Recent findings suggest that treatments aimed at improving perception of lower back have had positive effects on CLBP.[29] However, this is not a part of clinical evaluation among Iranian physiotherapists. This may be due to the lack of an appropriate outcome measure.

The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) measures body perception alteration in people with CLBP.[30] It is a tool that could be used for both therapeutic and research purposes. As racial, linguistic, cultural, and geographical differences between societies can affect the administration of the questionnaire, it is necessary to translate, cross culturally adapt, and validate the FreBAQ for use with Iranians. Therefore, the aim of this study is to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the FreBAQ.


  Materials and Methods Top


This cross-sectional psychometric research was performed between Spring 2014 and Winter 2015. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Ethics Code: IR.MUI.REC.1395.2.219). The approval for translation and cultural adaptation of the original version into Persian was obtained from the developer of the FreBAQ. All participants signed the informed consent form.

Participants

In this study, the participants were recruited from patients who were referred to physiotherapy clinics in Isfahan, Iran. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for healthy and LBP group were more or less similar to the original version.[30] Inclusion criteria for LBPs group included being aged between 18 and 60 years, having a history of nonspecific LBP for at least 6 months, declaring LBP as the main complaint, being a resident in Iran, speaking Persian as the mother language, and having the ability to read and write Persian. Exclusion criteria for patients with LBP were nerve root involvement; specific pathologies such as cancer, infection, fractures, and inflammatory diseases; lumbar spine surgery or invasive procedures in the past 12 months; and pregnancy and delivery during the last 6 months. The specific pathologies were realized with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-ray.

Inclusion criteria for the healthy group were being aged between 18 and 60 years, no history of back pain, no onset of back pain that has limited working or living in the past 2 years, residency in Iran, and speaking Persian as the native language. Exclusion criteria for this group were pregnancy, delivery during the last 6 months, and suffering from a major deformity in the spine. Fifty participants were enrolled per group.[31]

Translation

The FreBAQ was translated into Persian by two professional translators who were Persian natives. The translations were compared and discussed in a session with both translators and members of the research team to prepare the provisional version. Content validity was evaluated by experts in the field. In order to assess the face validity, the preliminary version of the questionnaire was completed by ten individuals with CLBP to find if there were any difficult and confusing phrases. The preliminary version was then translated back into English by a third translator whose mother language was English. The translated version was sent to the developer of the FreBAQ to confirm the similarity of the translated and original versions.

Instruments

Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

This tool has been designed for quantitative evaluation of back-specific self-perception in individuals with nonspecific CLBP. It is a self-report questionnaire which contains nine items. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The total score ranges from 0 to 36, with higher score indicating the greater disorder in the body's perception of back pain patients.[30]

Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire

This is a questionnaire for measuring the disability in patients with LBP, which includes 24 items. The total score ranges from 0 (no disability) to 24 (severe disability), in which higher score indicates greater disability.[32] Reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.83, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] =0.86) and validity (P = 0.0001) of the Persian version have been previously assessed.[33]

Visual Analog Scale

This scale is a horizontal line of 10 cm in length, with anchor statement on the left (0) representing no pain and anchor statement on the right (10) representing most severe pain experienced. The patient marks their pain at the time of examination on this line. The distance from the mark to the left anchor (0) is considered as pain severity in millimeters.

Pain Catastrophizing Scale

This is a 13-item questionnaire that measures catastrophic pain. Items on a 5-point Likert scale are rated from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the times). The range of scores is from 0 to 52, with the higher score showing more serious pain catastrophizing.[34] The validity and reliability of the Persian version (Cronbach' s α = 0.93) has been reported.[35]

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

This questionnaire consists of 14 items assessing the rate of depression and anxiety in outpatients. The items are scored on a 4-point Likert type scale from 0 to 3 and the total score is between 0 and 42. The rates of depression and anxiety are classified between 0 and 7 (normal), 8–10 (abnormal borderline), and 11–21 (abnormal).[36] The validity and reliability of the Persian version (Cronbach' s α = 0.78 for anxiety subscale and Cronbach' s α = 0.86 for depression subscale) had been evaluated previously.[37]

Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

It is a common tool that measures the amount of fear of pain and injury in patients with LBP. The questionnaire includes 17 items ranked from 1 (completely opposite) to 4 (totally agree), and the total score ranges from 18 to 68.[38] The reliability (ICC = 0.86, Cronbach's α = 0.80) and validity of the Persian version of Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) have been documented.[39]

Procedure

During the first visit, a blinded physical therapist checked the inclusion and exclusion criteria and reviewed the MRI and X-rays for eligibility. Then, the FreBAQ, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), PCS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and TSK were administered to all patients. FreBAQ was re-administered to 25 patients 1 week after the first visit.[40],[41] The FreBAQ was administered to healthy controls for discriminant validity.

Statistical analysis

Reliability was assessed in two forms, internal consistency (which is a method of reliability in which we judge how well the items on a test that are proposed to measure the same construct produce similar results) and test–retest reliability (stability of scores over time). Data obtained from the first test administration were used for internal consistency and data obtained from repeated testing were used for test–retest reliability. The discriminant validity (the ability of a questionnaire to differentiate between two known groups on a particular variable) and construct validity (the degree to which a questionnaire or a test measures what it claims to measure) were evaluated for the Persian FreBAQ. The correlation between the FreBAQ questionnaire score and the RDQ, VAS, PCS, HADS, and TSK was used to estimate the construct validity. The Persian FreBAQ had positive rating for construct validity if at least 75% of the results were in correspondence with these questionnaires.[31] Data acquired from the first test administration were used to assess construct validity.

The data were analyzed using SPSS software (SPSS, version 22, SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) at the significance level of 0.05. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's α ≥ 0.70 was considered satisfactory for internal consistency.[31] Test–retest reliability was calculated using a two-way random effects model of ICC (ICC2, 1) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). ICC ≥0.70 is indicative of acceptable test–retest reliability.[42] Standard error of measurements (SEM) was calculated as the square root of the mean square error term derived from the analysis of variance. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was defined as 95% CI of the SEM (±1.96** SEM).[31],[42]

The normal distribution was analyzed with Shapiro–Wilk test. The data did not have a normal distribution, therefore for discriminant validity, Mann–Whitney U-test was used to examine the difference in FreBAQ score between healthy and patients groups. The association between the FreBAQ and other measures was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients. The correlation coefficients >0.50 were defined strong, between 0.35 and 0.50 medium, and <0.35 weak.[43] Factor analysis with principal component extraction and varimax orthogonal rotation was performed to determine the structure of Persian FreBAQ. The Keiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test were used for assessment of the sampling adequacy and sphericity of correlation matrix, respectively.


  Results Top


The demographic characteristics of both healthy groups and patients with LBP are presented in [Table 1]. Thirty-four patients were female. The mean duration of patients with LBP was 32.24 ± 31.3 months. The healthy controls consisted of 37 females and 13 males.
Table 1: Mean (standard deviation) for demographics of the low back pain patients and healthy controls

Click here to view


[Table 2] represents the mean, SD, range, and the proportion of patients scoring for the Persian FreBAQ and other outcome measures. There was no statistically significant difference in age, sex, weight, and height between the two groups (P > 0.05).
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire and other outcome measures

Click here to view


Floor and ceiling effects

All items of the Persian FreBAQ were completed by the participants. There were no significant floor and ceiling effects for Persian FreBAQ. Two patients with LBP (4%) scored 0 on the Persian FreBAQ. No patient attained maximum possible score of 36.

Reliability

The internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach's α =0.74 [Table 3]. The test–retest reliability was confirmed by ICC = 0.96. [Table 4] represents Cronbach's α if an item of Persian Fre BAQ was deleted. The SEM was 0.91. The MDC was calculated as 2.52.
Table 3: Internal consistency (n=50), test-retest reliability (n=25), standard error of measurements, and minimal detectable change for the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Click here to view
Table 4: Cronbach's α for Persian Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire if an item deleted

Click here to view


Validity

There was a significant difference in Persian FreBAQ scores between healthy and patients groups (P = 0.001). The results of the Pearson's correlation test showed a statistically significant relationship between FreBAQ and PCS (r = 0.6, P = 0.001). The correlation between FreBAQ and RDQ was statistically significant (r = 0.33, P = 0.01) [Table 5].
Table 5: Pearson's correlation coefficient between the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire and outcome measures (n=50)

Click here to view


Factor analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.65. Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically significant at P = 0.001. Three factors (proprioception, back size, and back shape) were extracted which represented 23.2, 19.34, and 17.63 of the variances, respectively. Overall, they represented 60.18% of variances [Table 6].
Table 6: Principle component analysis and rotated component matrix of Persian Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire*

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The present study aimed to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the FreBAQ into Persian and validate it in patients with CLBP. The results indicated acceptable reliability and validity of the Persian FreBAQ similar to the original English version.[30]

Test–retest reliability

Test–retest reliability refers to the consistency of measurements when administered twice with an interval between test administrations. In the current study, the interval between two times of evaluation was 1 week, and the ICC coefficient was calculated for test–retest reliability. The test–retest reliability coefficient for Persian version of FreBAQ was satisfactory, in line with the original (0.74)[30] and the other translated versions of Japanese, Turkish, and German (all ~ 0.8).[40],[41],[44],[45] The ICC value found for the Persian version of FreBAQ indicates its stability over time.

Absolute reliability measure

The absolute reliability was evaluated by SEM and MDC. The SEM determines the accuracy of individual's score relative to the true test score of individual. The MDC is used to analyze the patients' scores on the target questionnaire representing the minimal amount of change that is due to real change and not from chance or measurement error. The MDC was found 2.52 for Persian FreBAQ. Thus, for an individual patient who underwent treatment, there should be at least 2.5 points change on Persian FreBAQ to be defined as a real and valid change, improved, or worsened. The MDC for Dutch version was reported as 10.8. The MDC is not reported for the other versions of FreBAQ.

Internal consistency reliability

Similar to the original English version of FreBAQ, the internal consistency for Persian FreBAQ was acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha of 0.74 was slightly higher compared to other translated versions.[40],[41],[44],[45] Internal consistency reliability was used to assess the interrelationship among the questionnaire items. High Cronbach's alpha indicates the homogeneity of Persian FreBAQ items measuring the same construct. The result of Cronbach's alpha if an item was deleted is useful for determining which item from among a set of items contributes to the total alpha. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was not significantly affected by deletion of any item. The correlations of ~ 0.7 were found between each item with the total score, which indicates that all the items display equal correlations with the total score.

Floor and ceiling effects

The current study found no floor and ceiling effects for Persian FreBAQ. Floor or ceiling effects are present if more than 15% of individuals get the lowest or highest possible score.[31] The presence of significant floor or ceiling effects implies the lack of content validity. In addition, the reliability is reduced because patients with the lowest or highest score are not distinguishable from each other. Moreover, the improvement or deterioration cannot be measured, and therefore the responsiveness of the questionnaire is limited.[31] The lack of floor and ceiling effects found for Persian FreBAQ was comparable to Japanese and German versions.[40],[45] The Dutch[41] and Turkish[44] versions had not reported the floor and ceiling effects.

Discriminant validity

The ability of the Persian FreBAQ to differentiate between healthy individuals and LBP patients was assessed by discriminant validity. The Persian FreBAQ total scores for the LBP patients were significantly higher than that of the healthy group. The difference between healthy and patients with LBP on the Persian FreBAQ indicates the ability of the Persian version in distinguishing between patients from healthy individuals. This finding was consistent with the original,[30] German,[40] and Dutch[41] versions of the FreBAQ. The Turkish[44] and Japanese[45] versions have not evaluated the discriminant validity.

Construct validity

To assess the construct validity, the Persian FreBAQ scores of patients were correlated to the instruments that measure the same concept. The significant correlation indicates that the Persian FreBAQ questionaire is construct valid. There was no significant correlation between Persian FreBAQ and VAS score. Dutch version of the FreBAQ showed no significant correlation between the pain score and disturbed body perception,[41] while the original and other translated versions demonstrated significant relationships.[30],[40],[44],[45],[46] The original version measured average pain intensity over the past week.[46] The Japanese and Turkish versions assessed pain in rest and motion.[44],[45] In addition, LBP severity and interference was measured by the German version.[40] The present study and Dutch version[41] evaluated current pain intensity of the LBP patients. The differences observed might be due to the methodology used for assessing pain in various studies.

The original FreBAQ measured the body perception disturbance. Previous research demonstrated that the body perception disturbance is related to psychological distress.[47] In order to evaluate the construct validity, the relation between Persian FreBAQ and HADS was calculated. Similar to Wand et al.,[30] there was no significant correlation between Persian FreBAQ and HADS. The further evaluation of original FreBAQ reported significant correlation between the back awareness disturbance and psychological distress;[46] symptoms of psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) were assessed with the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21, and the average score for the three subscales had been used for analysis. Nishigami et al. found significant relationship between Japanese FreBAQ and anxiety part of the HADS.[45] The Turkish[44] and German[40] versions of FreBAQ had positive relationships with both anxiety and depression parts of the HADS. Persian FreBAQ score significantly correlated with RDQ. This finding was in line with the results of the original[30] and all versions of FreBAQ.[40],[41],[44],[45]

There was no significant relationship between Persian FreBAQ and TSK. As well, the original[30] and Dutch[41] versions found no significant correlation between back awareness disturbance and kinesiophobia. The further evaluation of original FreBAQ[46] evaluated pain-related fear using the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and reported a significant correlation between back self-perception and fear avoidance beliefs. The Turkish[44] version showed significant relationship with TSK.

There was a significant relationship between Persian FreBAQ and pain catastrophization scale scores. The original,[30] Turkish,[44] and Japanese[45] versions of FreBAQ also demonstrated similar significant correlations. Catastrophizing means an overmagnification of experienced pain in the individual's mind[48] that is a subgroup of the psychologic aspect of body awareness. Body awareness has various aspects such as introception, proprioception, and physical (body perception) and physiological conditions of the body.[49] Therefore, our results indicate that the Persian version is capable of measuring body awareness.

Factor analysis

The structural validity of Persian FreBAQ was measured by factor analysis. Factor analysis attempts to identify the underlying variables or factors in order to explain the pattern of correlation between the observed variables. The result of factor analysis showed that all items loaded on the three factors confirmed the structural validity of Persian FreBAQ. The original version of FreBAQ was designed as a unidimensional scale to evaluate a single concept. Nevertheless, the original version reported a possible second dimension consisting of the items 4, 5, and 6.[30] In addition, principal component analysis of the Dutch[41] and Japanese[45] versions had shown a second dimension. The Turkish[44] and German[40] versions had not evaluated the dimensionality.


  Conclusion Top


The Persian version of FreBAQ has acceptable psychometric properties of reliability and validity in the evaluation of back perception changes in Persian-speaking people with LBP and can be useful for use in future research and clinical trials.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Waddell G. The Back Pain Revolution. Edinborough: Curchill Livingstone, Elsevier Health Sciences; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999;354:581-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Langevin HM, Sherman KJ. Pathophysiological model for chronic low back pain integrating connective tissue and nervous system mechanisms. Med Hypotheses 2007;68:74-80.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Field J. Back pain: What is happening when it becomes chronic? Clin Chiropr 2009;12:45-51.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Aoyagi K, He J, Nicol AL, Clauw DJ, Kluding PM, Jernigan S, et al. A Subgroup of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients With Central Sensitization. Clin J Pain 2019;35:869-79.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Shaw WS, Means-Christensen AJ, Slater MA, Webster JS, Patterson TL, Grant I, et al. Psychiatric disorders and risk of transition to chronicity in men with first onset low back pain. Pain Med 2010;11:1391-400.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wall P, Melzack R. Textbook of Pain. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1999.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Flor H, Elbert T, Knecht S, Wienbruch C, Pantev C, Birbaumer N, et al. Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature 1995;375:482-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Flor H, Braun C, Elbert T, Birbaumer N. Extensive reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in chronic back pain patients. Neurosci Lett 1997;224:5-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Flor H, Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain: A case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7:873-81.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Marchand F, Perretti M, McMahon SB. Role of the immune system in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005;6:521-32.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Julius D, Basbaum AI. Molecular mechanisms of nociception. Nature 2001;413:203-10.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Apkarian AV, Sosa Y, Sonty S, Levy RM, Harden RN, Parrish TB, et al. Chronic back pain is associated with decreased prefrontal and thalamic gray matter density. J Neurosci 2004;24:10410-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Schmidt-Wilcke T, Leinisch E, Gänssbauer S, Draganski B, Bogdahn U, Altmeppen J, et al. Affective components and intensity of pain correlate with structural differences in gray matter in chronic back pain patients. Pain 2006;125:89-97.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Seminowicz DA, Wideman TH, Naso L, Hatami-Khoroushahi Z, Fallatah S, Ware MA, et al. Effective treatment of chronic low back pain in humans reverses abnormal brain anatomy and function. J Neurosci 2011;31:7540-50.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Baliki MN, Petre B, Torbey S, Herrmann KM, Huang L, Schnitzer TJ, et al. Corticostriatal functional connectivity predicts transition to chronic back pain. Nat Neurosci 2012;15:1117-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Siddall PJ, Stanwell P, Woodhouse A, Somorjai RL, Dolenko B, Nikulin A, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy detects biochemical changes in the brain associated with chronic low back pain: A preliminary report. Anesth Analg 2006;102:1164-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sharma NK, McCarson K, Van Dillen L, Lentz A, Khan T, Cirstea CM. Primary somatosensory cortex in chronic low back pain-a H-MRS study. J Pain Res 2011;4:143-50.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sharma NK, Brooks WM, Popescu AE, Vandillen L, George SZ, McCarson KE, et al. Neurochemical analysis of primary motor cortex in chronic low back pain. Brain Sci 2012;2:319-31.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Lotze M, Moseley GL. Role of distorted body image in pain. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2007;9:488-96.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lewis JS, Schweinhardt P. Perceptions of the painful body: The relationship between body perception disturbance, pain and tactile discrimination in complex regional pain syndrome. Eur J Pain 2012;16:1320-30.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Brumagne S, Cordo P, Lysens R, Verschueren S, Swinnen S. The role of paraspinal muscle spindles in lumbosacral position sense in individuals with and without low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:989-94.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Lee AS, Cholewicki J, Reeves NP, Zazulak BT, Mysliwiec LW. Comparison of trunk proprioception between patients with low back pain and healthy controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1327-31.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Legrain V, Bultitude JH, De Paepe AL, Rossetti Y. Pain, body, and space: What do patients with complex regional pain syndrome really neglect? Pain 2012;153:948-51.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Wand BM, Di Pietro F, George P, O'Connell NE. Tactile thresholds are preserved yet complex sensory function is impaired over the lumbar spine of chronic non-specific low back pain patients: A preliminary investigation. Physiotherapy 2010;96:317-23.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Wand BM, Keeves J, Bourgoin C, George PJ, Smith AJ, O'Connell NE, et al. Mislocalization of sensory information in people with chronic low back pain: A preliminary investigation. Clin J Pain 2013;29:737-43.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Bray H, Moseley GL. Disrupted working body schema of the trunk in people with back pain. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:168-73.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Moseley GL. I can't find it! Distorted body image and tactile dysfunction in patients with chronic back pain. Pain 2008;140:239-43.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Wand BM, O'Connell NE, Di Pietro F, Bulsara M. Managing chronic nonspecific low back pain with a sensorimotor retraining approach: Exploratory multiple-baseline study of 3 participants. Phys Ther 2011;91:535-46.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Wand BM, James M, Abbaszadeh S, George PJ, Formby PM, Smith AJ, et al. Assessing self-perception in patients with chronic low back pain: Development of a back-specific body-perception questionnaire. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2014;27:463-73.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3115-24.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, Montazeri A, Mobini B. The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E454-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995;7:524.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Raeissadat S, Sadeghi S, Montazeri A. Validation of the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) in Iran. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2013;3:376-80.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-70.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Montazeri A, Vahdaninia M, Ebrahimi M, Jarvandi S. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:14.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Roelofs J, Goubert L, Peters ML, Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia: Further examination of psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. Eur J Pain 2004;8:495-502.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Jafari H, Ebrahimi I, Salavati M, Kamali M, Fata L. Psychometric properties of Iranian version of Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in low back pain patients. Arch Rehabil 2010;11:15-22.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Ehrenbrusthoff K, Ryan CG, Grüneberg C, Wand BM, Martin DJ. The translation, validity and reliability of the German version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire. PLoS One 2018;13:e0205244.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Janssens L, Goossens N, Wand BM, Pijnenburg M, Thys T, Brumagne S. The development of the Dutch version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017;32:84-91.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998;26:217-38.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:755-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Erol E, Yildiz A, Yildiz R, Apaydin U, Gokmen D, Elbasan B. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:E549-E554.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Nishigami T, Mibu A, Tanaka K, Yamashita Y, Shimizu ME, Wand BM, et al. Validation of the Japanese Version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire in Patients with Low Back Pain. Pain Pract 2018;18:170-9.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Wand BM, Catley MJ, Rabey MI, O'Sullivan PB, O'Connell NE, Smith AJ. Disrupted Self-perception in people with chronic low back pain. further evaluation of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire. J Pain 2016;17:1001-12.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Birklein F, Schlereth T. Complex regional pain syndrome-significant progress in understanding. Pain 2015;156 Suppl 1:S94-103.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Edwards RR, Bingham CO 3rd, Bathon J, Haythornthwaite JA. Catastrophizing and pain in arthritis, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:325-32.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Mehling WE, Price C, Daubenmier JJ, Acree M, Bartmess E, Stewart A. The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). PLoS One 2012;7:e48230.  Back to cited text no. 49
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed420    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded113    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal