Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Methodology

German version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ): translation and validation

Authors: Steffi Kreuzfeld, Reingard Seibt, Mohit Kumar, Annika Rieger, Regina Stoll

Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders are a public health problem with significant effects on work ability. In the context of the promotion and prevention of work-related health, there is a need for valid, simple, time-saving and universally applicable methods for the assessment of musculoskeletal pain and complaints. The aim of this study was the translation of the English Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ) into German and the validation of the German version.

Methods

The linguistic and cultural adaption of the CMDQ into German (D-CMDQ) followed international guidelines. The adapted pre-version was initially tested in terms of comprehensibility on 44 persons with different educational and occupational backgrounds. The questionnaire was validated further on 68 employees with the reference of an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (Cohen’s Kappa and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients). Finally, reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) were verified.

Results

The D-CMDQ meets the requirements for comprehensibility and demonstrated good validity: The values of Cohen’s Kappa and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient obtained substantial to excellent agreement, with one exception. The Kappa values for the test-retest reliability were mainly in the moderate to substantial range whilst taking the prevalence effect into account. The internal consistency was proven satisfactory.

Conclusions

The D-CMDQ meets the psychometric requirements for questionnaires. A clear one-sided presentation of body areas enables the time-saving assessment of musculoskeletal complaints and their effects on work ability. As a result, a broad application in the German-speaking world for different occupational groups seems possible, whether performing physical, manually repetitive or sedentary work.
Literature
1.
2.
Lee P. The economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders. Qual Life Res. 1994;3 Suppl 1:85–91.CrossRef
3.
Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D, Lipton R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA. 2003;290:2443–54.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA). Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei der Arbeit 2012. Unfallverhütungsbericht Arbeit. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin; 2014.
5.
Meyer M, Weirauch H, Weber F. Krankheitsbedingte Fehlzeiten in der deutschen Wirtschaft im Jahr 2011. In: Badura B, Ducki A, Schröder H, Klose J, Meyer M, editors. Fehlzeitenreport 2012. 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 332–3.
6.
Schneider S, Lipinski S, Schiltenwolf M. Occupations associated with a high risk of self-reported back pain: representative outcomes of a back pain prevalence study in the Federal Republic of Germany. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:821–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Janwantanakul P, Pensri P, Jiamjarasrangsri V, Sinsonsook T. Prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms among office workers. Occup Med. 2008;58:436–8.CrossRef
8.
Kim S-S, Okechukwu CA, Dennerlein JT, Boden LI, Hopcia K, Hashimoto DM, et al. Association between perceived inadequate staffing and musculoskeletal pain among hospital patient care workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87:323–30.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kraatz S, Lang J, Kraus T, Münster E, Ochsmann E. The incremental effect of psychosocial workplace factors on the development of neck and shoulder disorders: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013;86:375–95.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Strong J, Ashton R, Chant D. Pain intensity measurement in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 1991;7:209–18.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing numericalrating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41:1073–93.CrossRef
12.
Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–4.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Fairbank JCT, Davies JB, Couper J, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiother. 1980;66:271–3.
14.
Hoozemans MJM, Speklé EM, Van Dieёn JH. Concurrent validity of questions on arm, shoulder and neck symptoms of the RSI QuickScan. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013;86:789–98.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med. 1994;23:129–38.
16.
Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of muskuloskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18:233–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dawson AP, Steele EJ, Hodges PW, Stewart S. Development and test-retest reliability of an extended version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E): a screening instrument for musculoskeletal pain. J Pain. 2009;10:517–26.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hedge A, Morimoto S, McCrobie D. Effects of keyboard tray geometry on upper body posture and comfort. Ergonomics. 1999;42:1333–49.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hedge A, Puleio J, Wang V. Evaluating the impact of an office ergonomics program. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet. 2011;55:594–8.CrossRef
20.
Rudakewych M, Valent-Weitz L, Hedge A. Effects of an ergonomic intervention on musculoskeletal discomfort among office workers. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet. 2001;45:791–5.CrossRef
21.
Hedge A, James T. Gender effects on musculoskeletal symptoms among physician computer users in outpatient diagnostic clinics. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet. 2012;56:887–91.CrossRef
22.
Menzel NN, Brooks SM, Bernard TE, Audrey N. The physical workload of nursing personnel: association with musculoskeletal discomfort. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41:859–67.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Erdinc O, Hot K, Ozkaya M. Turkish version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Work. 2011;39:251–60.PubMed
24.
Afifehzadeh-Kashani H, Choobineh A, Bakand S, Gohari MR, Abbastabar H, Moshtaghis P. Validity and reliability of farsi version of Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ). Iran Occup Health. 2011;7:69–75.
25.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–91.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–32.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Perneger TV, Courvoisier DS, Hudelson PM, Gayet-Ageron A. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:147–51.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Landis JR, Koch GG. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/ CRC; 1991. p. 403–5.
32.
Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Statistical methods for rates & proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1981. p. 212–36.
33.
Brühl A. SPSS 16. Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse. 11th ed. München: Addison-Wesley; 2008.
34.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:142S–58.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:730–5.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Hair JE, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis: with readings, vol. 1995. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1995. p. 757.
37.
Kline P. Psychometrics and psychology, vol. 1979. London: Academic Press; 1979. p. 381.
38.
Moosbrugger H, Kelava A. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 2nd ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 21.CrossRef
39.
Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85:257–68.PubMed
40.
41.
42.
Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiol. 2003;228:303–8.CrossRef
43.
Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? Examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:98–104.CrossRef
44.
Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. Problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:543–9.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:551–8.CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–20.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Hoehler FK. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specifity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:499–503.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Pugh JD, Gelder L, Williams AM, Twigg DE, Wilkinson AM, Blazevich AJ. Validity and reliability of an online extended version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E2) to measure nurses’ fitness. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24:3550–63.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Svensson E. Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Statist Med. 2012;31:3104–17.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
German version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ): translation and validation
Authors
Steffi Kreuzfeld
Reingard Seibt
Mohit Kumar
Annika Rieger
Regina Stoll
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6673
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0100-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in healthcare workers at a hospital in Naples, Italy, a low-incidence country

Review

A decade of an HIV workplace programme in armed conflict zones; a social responsibility response of the International Committee of the Red Cross

Methodology

Design and methodology of the Geo-social Analysis of Physicians’ settlement (GAP-Study) in Germany

Case report

Stonefish envenomation of hand with impending compartment syndrome

Research

Physicians’ working conditions in hospitals from the students’ perspective (iCEPT-Study)—results of a web-based survey

Research

Hepatitis C among healthcare personnel: secondary data analyses of costs and trends for hepatitis C infections with occupational causes