Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain

Part II: Scale construction

  • Review
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A literature review of the most widely used, condition-specific, self-administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain has been undertaken. In part I, technical issues such as validity, reliability, availability and comparability were analyzed for the nine most widely used outcome tools. This second part focuses on the content and wording of questions and answers in each of the nine questionnaires, and an analysis of the different score results is performed. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessment in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooks R (1996) EuroQuol: the current state of play. Health Pol 37:53–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Daltroy LH, Cats Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dubs L (2000) Der Score Bias. Schweiz. Aertzezeitung 81(6):292–295

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dubs L (1999) [Everything was done—patient still not satisfied: introduction to evidence-based surgery]. Swiss Surg 5(4):160–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dubs L (2000) [The patient as expert—introduction to evidence-based orthopedics]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:289–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Euroquol-group (1990) Euroquol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 16:199–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gray DB, Hendershot GE (2000) The ICIDH-2: developments for a new era of outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S10–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17:36–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hefti F (1996) Numerische “Scores” zur Evaluation von Behandlungsresultaten am Bewegungsapparat. Schweiz. Aerztezeitung 12:492–496

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI (1995) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine 20:341–352

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B, Vinterberg H, Kreiner S, Jordan A (1994) Low back pain rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain 57:317–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Million R, Hall W, Nilsen KH, Baker RD, Jayson MI (1981) Assessment of the progress of the back-pain patient 1981 Volvo Award in Clinical Science. Spine 7:204–212

    Google Scholar 

  16. Porst R (2000) Question wording—Zur Formulierung von Fragebogen-Fragen. ZUMA, Mannheim 2:1–11

  17. Raspe HH (1997) [Minimum requirements in medical expert assessment of occupational disability of patients with chronic nonspecific pain]. Versicherungsmedizin 49:118–125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:3115–3124

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Wardlaw D, Russell IT (1994) Developing a valid and reliable measure of health outcome for patients with low back pain. Spine 19:1887–1896

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steiner D, Normann G (1995) Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford Medical, 2nd edn.

  22. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Ustun TB (2002) Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 24:281–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tubergen A van, Landewe R, Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Spoorenberg A, van der Heijde D, van der Tempel H, van der Linden S (2003) Assessment of disability with the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62:140–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Waddell G, Main CJ (1984) Assessment of severity in low-back disorders. Spine 9:204–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. WHO (2001) The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health—ICF. WHO, Geneva

  27. Wood PL (1980) Introduction to the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. (ed), WHO, Geneva

  28. Zycha H (1998) Theorie und Erfahrung in der Medizin: Orthodoxe Wissenschaft und ganzheitliche Kybernetik. Forsch Komplementarmed 5 [Suppl] S1:52–59

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Evaluative Research in Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 35, P.O. Box 8354, 3001 , Bern, Switzerland

    U. Müller & C. Roeder

  2. WIG, Winterthur, Switzerland

    L. Dubs

  3. Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    M. S. Duetz

  4. The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK

    C. G. Greenough

Authors
  1. U. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Roeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Dubs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. S. Duetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. G. Greenough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Müller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller, U., Roeder, C., Dubs, L. et al. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Eur Spine J 13, 314–324 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0666-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0666-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation