Display options
Cite
Akyol Y, Ulus Y, Terzi Y, et al. Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis. Arch Rheumatol. 2018;33(4):408-417doi: 10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756.
Akyol, Y., Ulus, Y., Terzi, Y., Bilgici, A., & Kuru, �. �. (2018). Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis. Archives of rheumatology, 33(4), 408-417. https://doi.org/10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756
Akyol, Yesim, et al. "Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis." Archives of rheumatology vol. 33,4 (2018): 408-417. doi: https://doi.org/10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756
Akyol Y, Ulus Y, Terzi Y, Bilgici A, Kuru Ö. Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis. Arch Rheumatol. 2018 Apr 11;33(4):408-417. doi: 10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756. eCollection 2018 Dec. PMID: 30816359; PMCID: PMC6386251.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Arch Rheumatol. 2018 Apr 11;33(4):408-417. doi: 10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756. eCollection 2018 Dec.

Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis.

Archives of rheumatology

Yesim Akyol, Yasemin Ulus, Yüksel Terzi, Ayhan Bilgici, Ömer Kuru

Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Medicine Faculty of Ondokuz May?s University, Samsun, Turkey.
  2. Department of Statistics, Medicine Faculty of Ondokuz May?s University, Samsun, Turkey.

PMID: 30816359 PMCID: PMC6386251 DOI: 10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6756

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire (s-SRPQ) in Turkish patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Turkish version of s-SRPQ questionnaire was obtained after a translation and back translation process. The study sample included 100 ankylosing spondylitis patients (59 males, 41 females; mean age 42.0±11.0 years; range 19 to 69 years). To assess the test-retest reliability of the Turkish s-SRPQ, the questionnaire was reapplied 15 days after the first interview (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). Cronbach's alpha (a) was used to evaluate the internal consistency. The s-SRPQ was compared with Short Form-36 (SF-36) survey, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire (ASQoL), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) for convergent validiy.

RESULTS: For s-SRPQ/experienced physical difficulties; the individual item ICC ranged from 0.78 to 1.00 and Cronbach's alpha value ranged from 0.88 to 1.00. For s-SRPQ/satisfaction with role performance; the individual item ICC ranged from 0.93 to 0.98 and Cronbach's alpha value ranged from 0.96 to 0.99. The Turkish version of s-SRPQ/experienced physical difficulties scores correlated with the SWLS and SF-36 sub-parameters negatively; and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, and BASFI, and ASQoL positively. The SRPQ/satisfaction with role performance scores correlated with the SWLS and SF-36 sub-parameters positively; and BASDAI, and BASFI, and ASQoL negatively.

CONCLUSION: Turkish version of s-SRPQ has good comprehensibility, internal consistency, and validity and is an adequate and useful instrument for the assessment of participation in Turkish patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis; Short Form of the Social Role Participation Questionnaire; Turkish version; social role participation; validity and reliability

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Dec;61 Suppl 3:iii8-18 - PubMed
  2. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003 Jan;62(1):20-6 - PubMed
  3. Rheumatol Int. 2005 May;25(4):280-4 - PubMed
  4. Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Apr;24(2):123-8 - PubMed
  5. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83 - PubMed
  6. J Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;34(6):1248-60 - PubMed
  7. J Rheumatol. 2008 Aug;35(8):1655-63 - PubMed
  8. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Jan;69(1):108-12 - PubMed
  9. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Oct;70(10):1765-9 - PubMed
  10. Rheumatol Int. 2013 Nov;33(11):2717-22 - PubMed
  11. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015 Jul;17(7):47 - PubMed
  12. J Rheumatol. 2016 Jul;43(7):1386-92 - PubMed
  13. Am J Public Health. 1977 Dec;67(12):1188-91 - PubMed
  14. Arthritis Rheum. 1984 Apr;27(4):361-8 - PubMed
  15. J Rheumatol. 1994 Dec;21(12):2281-5 - PubMed
  16. J Rheumatol. 1994 Dec;21(12):2286-91 - PubMed

Publication Types