Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the back pain attitudes questionnaire (Back-PAQ-G)

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) affects at least 80% of individuals during their lifetime and incurs significant healthcare costs, with around 90% being classified as non-specific. Psychosocial factors, including kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing, are critical in the risk of LBP chronicity. While various validated questionnaires assess these factors, a reliable German version of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) was previously lacking. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back-PAQ into German (Back-PAQ-G) and estimate Cronbach’s alpha and evaluate test–retest reliability among individuals with and without LBP as well as healthcare professionals. Methods This cross-sectional study included translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and reliability assessment of the Back-PAQ into German according to established guidelines. A total of 112 participants were recruited: 30 reported current LBP, 67 previous LBP but no current LBP, and 15 had never experienced LBP; 74 participants were healthcare professionals. Baseline and follow-up assessments were conducted online with a 7–14-day interval. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Limits of Agreement for the Back-PAQ-G (34 items), Back-PAQ-G-20 (20 items), and Back-PAQ-G-10 (10 items). Results The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process resulted in a finalized German version of the Back-PAQ suitable for the DACH region following resolution of discrepancies through collaboration with the original author and an expert committee. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94 for the Back-PAQ-G, 0.91 for the Back-PAQ-G-20, and 0.83 for the Back-PAQ-G-10. Test–retest reliability was good to excellent, with ICC values of 0.95, 0.93, and 0.90, respectively. Conclusions Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.83 to 0.94 across the three versions and is reported descriptively, while test–retest reliability was good to excellent in this sample. Interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha should additionally consider evidence on structural validity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05960760). Registered 17 July 2023; prospectively registered. Project-ID 2023-00952 of the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zürich & Basel

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2026-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-026-10584-8
Primary Topic
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the back pain attitudes questionnaire (Back-PAQ-G)

Jürgen Degenfellner, Guillaume Christe, Ben J.S. Darlow, Fabian Pfeiffer et al.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
article

Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the back pain attitudes questionnaire (Back-PAQ-G)

Jürgen Degenfellner, Guillaume Christe, Ben J.S. Darlow, Fabian Pfeiffer, Marina Bruderer‐Hofstetter, Stefan Schmid, Denise Nyfeler, Micha Mohler
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) affects at least 80% of individuals during their lifetime and incurs significant healthcare costs, with around 90% being classified as non-specific. Psychosocial factors, including kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing, are critical in the risk of LBP chronicity. While various validated questionnaires assess these factors, a reliable German version of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) was previously lacking. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Back-PAQ into German (Back-PAQ-G) and estimate Cronbach’s alpha and evaluate test–retest reliability among individuals with and without LBP as well as healthcare professionals. Methods This cross-sectional study included translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and reliability assessment of the Back-PAQ into German according to established guidelines. A total of 112 participants were recruited: 30 reported current LBP, 67 previous LBP but no current LBP, and 15 had never experienced LBP; 74 participants were healthcare professionals. Baseline and follow-up assessments were conducted online with a 7–14-day interval. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Limits of Agreement for the Back-PAQ-G (34 items), Back-PAQ-G-20 (20 items), and Back-PAQ-G-10 (10 items). Results The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process resulted in a finalized German version of the Back-PAQ suitable for the DACH region following resolution of discrepancies through collaboration with the original author and an expert committee. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94 for the Back-PAQ-G, 0.91 for the Back-PAQ-G-20, and 0.83 for the Back-PAQ-G-10. Test–retest reliability was good to excellent, with ICC values of 0.95, 0.93, and 0.90, respectively. Conclusions Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.83 to 0.94 across the three versions and is reported descriptively, while test–retest reliability was good to excellent in this sample. Interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha should additionally consider evidence on structural validity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05960760). Registered 17 July 2023; prospectively registered. Project-ID 2023-00952 of the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zürich & Basel

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH), HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (CH), University of Basel (CH), Kantonsspital Winterthur (CH), Haute École de Santé Vaud, University of Otago (NZ), ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.