HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Davidson, M. Articles by Keating, J. L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davidson, M. Articles by Keating, J. L Related Collections Injuries and Conditions: Low Back Tests and Measurements Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

A Comparison of Five Low Back Disability Questionnaires: Reliability and Responsiveness

M Davidson, PT, BAppSc, is Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Bundoora, 3053, Melbourne, Australia (M.Davidson{at}latrobe.edu.au). Address all correspondence to Ms Davidson
JL Keating, PT, PhD, is Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University

Background and Purpose. The aim of this study was to examine 5 commonly used questionnaires for assessing disability in people with low back pain. The modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Waddell Disability Index, and the physical health scales of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) were compared in patients undergoing physical therapy for low back pain. Subjects and Methods. Patients with low back pain completed the questionnaires during initial consultation with a physical therapist and again 6 weeks later (n=106). Test-retest reliability was examined for a group of 47 subjects who were classified as "unchanged" and a subgroup of 16 subjects who were self-rated as "about the same." Responsiveness was compared using standardized response means, receiver operating characteristic curves, and the proportions of subjects who changed by at least as much as the minimum detectable change (MDC) (90% confidence interval [CI] of the standard error for repeated measures). Scale width was judged as adequate if no more than 15% of the subjects had initial scores at the upper or lower end of the scale that were insufficient to allow change to be reliably detected. Results. Intraclass correlation coefficients (2,1) calculated to measure reliability for the subjects who were classified as "unchanged" and those who were self-rated as "about the same" were greater than .80 for the Oswestry and Quebec questionnaires and the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale and less than .80 for the Waddell and Roland-Morris questionnaires and the SF-36 Role Limitations–Physical and Bodily Pain scales. None of the scales were more responsive than any other. Discussion and Conclusion. Measurements obtained with the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale were the most reliable and had sufficient width scale to reliably detect improvement or worsening in most subjects. The reliability of measurements obtained with the Waddell Disability Index was moderate, but the scale appeared to be insufficient to recommend it for clinical application. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Role Limitations–Physical and Bodily Pain scales of the SF-36 appeared to lack sufficient reliability and scale width for clinical application.

Key Words: Disability • Low back pain • Measurement • Questionnaire

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Rihn, S. Berven, T. Allen, F. M. Phillips, B. L. Currier, S. D. Glassman, D. B. Nash, C. Mick, A. Crockard, and T. J. Albert Defining Value in Spine Care American Journal of Medical Quality, November 1, 2009; 24(6_suppl): 4S - 14S. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. L. Barker, J. C. Nitz, N. L. Low Choy, and T. Haines Measuring Fall Risk and Predicting Who Will Fall: Clinimetric Properties of Four Fall Risk Assessment Tools for Residential Aged Care J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, August 1, 2009; 64A(8): 916 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D Rundell, T. E Davenport, and T. Wagner Physical Therapist Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain Using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Physical Therapy, January 1, 2009; 89(1): 82 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J Hahne and J. J Ford Functional Restoration for a Chronic Lumbar Disk Extrusion With Associated Radiculopathy Physical Therapy, December 1, 2006; 86(12): 1668 - 1680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I A Steenstra, J R Anema, P M Bongers, H C W de Vet, D L Knol, and W van Mechelen The effectiveness of graded activity for low back pain in occupational healthcare Occup. Environ. Med., November 1, 2006; 63(11): 718 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Kirmit, V. Karatosun, B. Unver, S. Bakirhan, A. Sen, and Z. Gocen The reliability of hip scoring systems for total hip arthroplasty candidates: assessment by physical therapists Clinical Rehabilitation, June 1, 2005; 19(6): 659 - 661. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W Kuijer, S Brouwer, P U Dijkstra, W Jorritsma, J W Groothoff, and J H. Geertzen Responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: consequences of using different external criteria Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2005; 19(5): 488 - 495. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. L Riddle, P. W Stratford, M. Davidson, and J. Keating Roland-Morris Scale Reliability Physical Therapy, May 1, 2002; 82(5): 512 - 517. [Full Text]