Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

Alan Jenks; Trynke Hoekstra; Maurits van Tulder; Raymond W. Ostelo; Sidney M. Rubinstein; Alessandro Chiarotto

doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

Alan Jenks^*, Trynke Hoekstra, Maurits van Tulder, Raymond W. Ostelo, Sidney M. Rubinstein, Alessandro Chiarotto

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

1424 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. METHODS: Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	457-469
Number of pages	13
Journal	Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Volume	52
Issue number	7
Early online date	21 Jun 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.10802
Publication status	Published - Jul 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
1Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. This protocol has received ethical approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center (ethics number 2017-618). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of their individual details and accompanying images in this manuscript. The consent form is held by the authors’ institution in a secured server and is available for review by the editor in chief. This study is funded by the European Centre for Chiropractic Research Excellence (ECCRE), located in Odense, Denmark (grant number 01-2016-NL/MvT), and by the Nederlandse Chiropractoren Associatie (NCA), located in Joure, the Netherlands. Drs Jenks and Rubinstein work as chiropractors in private practice. Drs van Tulder and Rubinstein received grants from the European Chiropractors’ Union, the ECCRE, the Belgian Chiropractic Association (BVC), and the NCA for their positions at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Alan Jenks, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MF Building, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] t Copyright ©2022 JOSPT ®, Inc

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 JOSPT®, Inc

Funding

1Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. This protocol has received ethical approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center (ethics number 2017-618). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of their individual details and accompanying images in this manuscript. The consent form is held by the authors’ institution in a secured server and is available for review by the editor in chief. This study is funded by the European Centre for Chiropractic Research Excellence (ECCRE), located in Odense, Denmark (grant number 01-2016-NL/MvT), and by the Nederlandse Chiropractoren Associatie (NCA), located in Joure, the Netherlands. Drs Jenks and Rubinstein work as chiropractors in private practice. Drs van Tulder and Rubinstein received grants from the European Chiropractors’ Union, the ECCRE, the Belgian Chiropractic Association (BVC), and the NCA for their positions at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Alan Jenks, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MF Building, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] t Copyright ©2022 JOSPT ®, Inc

Keywords

anatomy/spine
clinical measurement (clinimetrics)
low back/lumbar spine
manual therapy/spine
outcome measures

Access to Document

10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability ScaleFinal published version, 223 KBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Jenks, A., Hoekstra, T., van Tulder, M., Ostelo, R. W., Rubinstein, S. M., & Chiarotto, A. (2022). Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain? Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 52(7), 457-469. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

@article{ee116722cdb64c858e860af8245c8f87,

title = "Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. METHODS: Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP.",

keywords = "anatomy/spine, clinical measurement (clinimetrics), low back/lumbar spine, manual therapy/spine, outcome measures",

author = "Alan Jenks and Trynke Hoekstra and {van Tulder}, Maurits and Ostelo, {Raymond W.} and Rubinstein, {Sidney M.} and Alessandro Chiarotto",

note = "Funding Information: 1Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. This protocol has received ethical approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center (ethics number 2017-618). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of their individual details and accompanying images in this manuscript. The consent form is held by the authors{\textquoteright} institution in a secured server and is available for review by the editor in chief. This study is funded by the European Centre for Chiropractic Research Excellence (ECCRE), located in Odense, Denmark (grant number 01-2016-NL/MvT), and by the Nederlandse Chiropractoren Associatie (NCA), located in Joure, the Netherlands. Drs Jenks and Rubinstein work as chiropractors in private practice. Drs van Tulder and Rubinstein received grants from the European Chiropractors{\textquoteright} Union, the ECCRE, the Belgian Chiropractic Association (BVC), and the NCA for their positions at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Alan Jenks, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MF Building, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] t Copyright {\textcopyright}2022 JOSPT {\textregistered}, Inc Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} 2022 JOSPT{\textregistered}, Inc",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

doi = "10.2519/jospt.2022.10802",

language = "English",

volume = "52",

pages = "457--469",

journal = "Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy",

issn = "0190-6011",

publisher = "Movement Science Media",

number = "7",

}

Jenks, A , Hoekstra, T , van Tulder, M , Ostelo, RW , Rubinstein, SM & Chiarotto, A 2022, 'Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?', Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 457-469. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain? / Jenks, Alan ; Hoekstra, Trynke ; van Tulder, Maurits et al.
In: Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Vol. 52, No. 7, 07.2022, p. 457-469.

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

T2 - Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

AU - Jenks, Alan

AU - Hoekstra, Trynke

AU - van Tulder, Maurits

AU - Ostelo, Raymond W.

AU - Rubinstein, Sidney M.

AU - Chiarotto, Alessandro

N1 - Funding Information: 1Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. This protocol has received ethical approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center (ethics number 2017-618). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of their individual details and accompanying images in this manuscript. The consent form is held by the authors’ institution in a secured server and is available for review by the editor in chief. This study is funded by the European Centre for Chiropractic Research Excellence (ECCRE), located in Odense, Denmark (grant number 01-2016-NL/MvT), and by the Nederlandse Chiropractoren Associatie (NCA), located in Joure, the Netherlands. Drs Jenks and Rubinstein work as chiropractors in private practice. Drs van Tulder and Rubinstein received grants from the European Chiropractors’ Union, the ECCRE, the Belgian Chiropractic Association (BVC), and the NCA for their positions at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Alan Jenks, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MF Building, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] t Copyright ©2022 JOSPT ®, Inc Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2022 JOSPT®, Inc

PY - 2022/7

Y1 - 2022/7

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. METHODS: Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. METHODS: Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP.

KW - anatomy/spine

KW - clinical measurement (clinimetrics)

KW - low back/lumbar spine

KW - manual therapy/spine

KW - outcome measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132298995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85132298995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

DO - 10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

M3 - Article

C2 - 35584027

AN - SCOPUS:85132298995

SN - 0190-6011

VL - 52

SP - 457

EP - 469

JO - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

JF - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

IS - 7

ER -

Jenks A , Hoekstra T , van Tulder M , Ostelo RW , Rubinstein SM, Chiarotto A. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain? Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2022 Jul;52(7):457-469. Epub 2022 Jun 21. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10802

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this