Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

German validation of the quality of life profile for spinal disorders (QLPSD)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Quality of Life Profile for Spine Deformities (QLPSD) is a self-reporting questionnaire designed for studying patients with spinal deformities.

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to systematically translate the QLPSD into German (G-QLPSD) and to test its reliability and validity. Special emphasis was intended to be given to patients with different Cobb angles and ages.

Methods

The QLPSD was systematically translated into German and was responded to in a web-based online survey by patients with idiopathic scoliosis and by healthy control individuals to carry out a matched-pair analysis. Participants aged 14 years and older were included. All participants answered a battery of validated questionnaires (SRS 22-r, PHQ-9, PANAS, FKS, WHO-5, BFI-S, PTQ). Reliability testing included Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest reliability (retest 8 weeks after initial testing). Factorial, convergent, divergent, concurrent, and discriminant validity were calculated.

Results

A total of 255 scoliosis patients (age 30.0 ± 16.7 years, Cobb angle 43.5° ± 20.9°) and 189 matched healthy control individuals were finally included. Cronbach’s alpha for the G-QLPSD total score was 0.93 and the test–retest reliability was 0.84. The G-QLPSD total score correlated with the SRS 22-r total score (r = −0.86). All concurrently applied scores showed strong correlations with the G-QLPSD (e.g., depression score PHQ-9: r = 0.70). The matched-pair analysis of 189 pairs showed strong discriminant validity (Cohen’s d = 0.78). Patients with more severe Cobb angles (≥40°) and those ≥18 years of age had significantly poorer results than patients with minor curves and younger patients.

Conclusion

The G-QLPSD proved to be a highly reliable and valid instrument that can be recommended for clinical use in scoliosis patients.

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

Notes

  1. According to the guidelines provided by Cohen [24], standardized mean differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 and more are considered to represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.

References

  1. Climent JM, Reig A, Sánchez J, Roda C (1995) Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 20(18):2006–2011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Howard A, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Wright J (2007) Improvement in quality of life following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 32(24):2715–2718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pham VM, Houlliez A, Carpentier A, Herbaux B, Schill A, Thevenon A (2008) Determination of the influence of the Chêneau brace on quality of life for adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Ann Réadaptation Med Phys 51:3–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Korovessis P, Zacharatos S, Koureas G, Megas P (2007) Comparative multifactorial analysis of the effects of idiopathic adolescent scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis on the self-perceived health status of adolescents treated with brace. Eur Spine J 16:537–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagó J, Climent JM, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Pellisé F (2013) Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2):S195–S202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Climent JM, Sánchez J, Group for the Study of QoL in Spine Deformities (1999) Impact of the type of brace on the quality of life of adolescents with spine deformities. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 24(18):1903–1908

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davies E, Norvell D, Hermsmeyer J (2011) Efficacy of bracing versus observation in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Evid Based Spine Care J 2(2):25–34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanchez-Raya J, Bago J, Pellise F, Cuxart A, Villanueva C (2012) Does the lower instrumented vertebra have an effect on lumbar mobility, subjective perception of trunk flexibility, and quality of life in patients with idiopathic scoliosis treated by spinal fusion? J Spinal Disord Tech 25(8):437–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith PL, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Alman B, Howard A, Stephens D, Wright JG (2006) Parents’ and patients’ perception of postoperative appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 31(20):2367–2374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook DA, Beckman TJ (2006) Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 119(2):166-e7–16

  11. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG (2008) Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 65(23):2276–2284. doi:10.2146/ajhp070364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 27(2):53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, Herberts T, Leichtle C, Gesicki M (2009) Validity and reliability of an adapted German Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(8):818–821. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819b33be

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW (2001) The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16(9):606–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect. The PANAS scales. J Personal Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Buhlmann U, Wilhelm S, Glaesmer H, Braehler E, Rief W (2009) Fragebogen körperdysmorpher symptome (FKS): Ein screening-instrument. Verhaltenstherapie 19:237–242. doi:10.1159/000246278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerlitz JY, Schupp J (2005) Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Research Notes, 4), Berlin. Available at: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43490.de/rn4.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2016

  18. Ehring T, Zetsche U, Weidacker K, Wahl K, Schoenfeld S, Ehlers A (2011) The Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ): validation of a content-independent measure of repetitive negative thinking. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 42(2):225–232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P (2005) The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 84(3):167–176. doi:10.1159/000376585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wetterkamp M, Thielsch MT, Gosheger G, Boertz P, Terheyden JH, Schulte TL (2017) German validation of the BIDQ-S Questionnaire on body image disturbance in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 26(2):309–315. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4895-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81:358–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Anastasi A, Urbina S (1997) Psychological testing, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  25. Matamalas A, Bagó J, D’Agata E, Pellisé F (2014) Body image in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison study of psychometric properties between four patient-reported outcome instruments. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Feise RJ, Donaldson S, Crowther ER, Menke JM, Wright JG (2005) Construction and validation of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 30(11):1310–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish Version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Patient Questionnaire. Spine (Phil Pa 1976) 30(6):705–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zeh A, Planert M, Klima S, Hein W, Wohlrab D (2008) The flexible TriacTM-Brace for conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. An alternative treatment option? Acta Orthop Belg 74:512–521

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schoenbrodt FD, Perugini M (2013) At what sample size do correlations stabilize? J Res Personal 47:609–612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, Huck SW, Skolits GJ, Esquivel SL (2013) Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract Assess Res Eval 18(6):1–13. Available at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=6. Accessed 14 Mar 2016

  31. Hirschfeld G, von Brachel R, Thielsch MT (2014) Selecting items for Big Five Questionnaires: at what sample size do factor loadings stabilize? J Res Personal 53:54–63. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Friederike Jansen for her support in sampling and data preparation for analyses. In addition, we would like to thank Petra Hölzle and Dr. Michael Robertson for professionally translating the QLPSD from English into German and vice versa, as this was the basis for this entire study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tobias L. Schulte and Meinald T. Thielsch contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Katholisches Klinikum Bochum, St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Gudrunstr. 56, 44791, Bochum, Germany

    Tobias L. Schulte & Mark Wetterkamp

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Meinald T. Thielsch & Patrick Boertz

  3. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany

    Georg Gosheger & Jan Henrik Terheyden

Authors
  1. Tobias L. Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meinald T. Thielsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Gosheger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Boertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Henrik Terheyden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Wetterkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias L. Schulte.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 82 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulte, T.L., Thielsch, M.T., Gosheger, G. et al. German validation of the quality of life profile for spinal disorders (QLPSD). Eur Spine J 27, 83–92 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5284-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5284-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation