背景與目的：許多相關英文下背痛生活功能問卷的建立，尤其以羅蘭－摩理斯生活障礙問卷(Roland-Morris Disability questionnaire)最廣為使用。當僅直接將問卷從一語言翻譯到另一語言時，若沒有考慮原始問卷與新語言問卷間的語言文化差異，此翻譯是否等同於原始問卷是值得懷疑的。所以本研究旨在使用泛文化改編來完成中文版羅蘭－摩理斯下背痛生活障礙問卷，同時要建立中文版問卷的心理計畫特性。研究方法：本研究使用翻譯、翻譯合成、反向翻譯、專家會議、及定版前預試等步驟完成中文版羅蘭－摩理斯問卷。信度檢測使用內在一致性與再測信度，效度檢測以皮爾森相關係數比較羅蘭－摩理斯問卷總分與36短型醫療成效研究(Medical Outcomes Study Short Form–36，MOS SF-36)，以及與疼痛指數間相關性。本研究共有112位臨床下背痛病患完成測驗，平均年齡38.5±13.1歲(範圍14歲~78歲)。結果：中文版羅蘭－摩理斯問卷有高的內在一致性(Cronbach’s α值0.848)，及良好的再測信度(級內相關係數=0.81)。中文版問卷總分與MOS SF-36八個量尺相關係數由r=-0.73(身體疼痛)到r=-0.37(一般自覺健康)，皆達顯著差異(p<0.01)。與疼痛指數之間相關係數r=0.32，也達顯著差異(p<0.05)。結論：本研究結果顯示中文版羅蘭－摩理斯問卷具有與原始英文版和其他外國版相近的心理計量特性，這樣的結果可望提供更進一步臨床試驗使用。(物理治療2003;28(6):324-332)

Background and purposes: Many English questionnaires have been developed to measure the functional status of patients with low back pain (LEI). Among these, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is the most widely used. When a questionnaire was directly translated from one language to another without considering the language and cultural differences between the original and translated version, it is doubtful that the translated version is equivalent to the original one. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to construct a Chinese version of the RMDQ through cross-cultural adaptation process, and to establish its psychometric properties. Methods: The construction of the Chinese version of the RMDQ proceeded through the following steps: forward translation, synthesis of translation, backward translation, expert committee, and test of the pre-final version. Two types of test reliability, internal consistency and test-retest, were assessed. Validity was assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficient on the RMDQ sum scores compared with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form -36 (MOS SF-36) and pain index. A total of 112 patients with LBP were recruited. The average age was 38.5±13.1 years old (age range 14-78). Results: A high degree of internal consistency was observed for the Chinese version of the RMDQ (Cronbach' s alpha value = 0.848). The overall test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81). The Chinese version of the RMDQ sum scores correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with eight scales of the MOS SF-36, ranging from r =-0.73 (bodily pain) to r = -0.37 (general health perception). Additionally, significant correlation emerged between the Chinese version and the pain index (r = 0.32, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of the present study show that the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the RMDQ were similar to those of the original and other language versions. Future application of this psychometrically sound Chinese version in the clinical practices and research would be highly encouraged.(FJPT 2003;28(6):324-332)