Objective: To determine the consequences of using different external criteria on responsiveness of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in patients with chronic low back pain.
Design: Questionnaire measures before and after rehabilitation treatment.
Setting: Rehabilitation centre.
Subjects: Patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, referred for treatment.
Main measures: The RMDQ was used to assess self-reported functional status. The used external criteria were: (1) global perceived effect of change in complaints; (2) global perceived effect of change in ability to take care of oneself; (3) change in rating of pain intensity; (4) smallest real difference. Standardized response means, pooled effect sizes and receiver operating curves were calculated to determine respon siveness and to enable comparison of effect sizes with the thresholds of Cohen.
Results: Standardized response means ranged from 1.33 to 3.45, pooled effect sizes ranged from 1.50 to 2.81, and areas under curves ranged from 0.76 to 1.00, dependent on the used external criterion.
Conclusions: All pooled effect sizes were well above 0.80, and all other statistics were high, indicating good responsiveness of the RMDQ. However, considerable differences were found in responsiveness, when using different external criteria in a same study population. Therefore, it can be concluded that the magnitude of the responsiveness statistic depends on the used external criteria.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Beurskens AJ, Vet de HC, Koke AJ, Heijden van der GJ, Knipschild PG. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Spine1995; 20: 1017–1028.
2.
2 Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine2000; 25: 3100–3103.
3.
3 Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine2000; 25: 3115–3124.
4.
4 Farrar JT, Young JPJr, Moreaux La L, Werth JL, Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain2001; 94: 149–158.
5.
5 Gronblad M, Jarvinen EAO, Ruuskanen M, Hamalainen H, Kouri J. Relationship of subjective disability with pain intensity, pain duration, pain location, and work-related factors in nonoperated patients with chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain1996; 12: 194–200.
6.
6 Hazard RG, Haugh LD, Green PA, Jones PL.Chronic low back pain. The relationship between patient satisfaction and pain, impairment, and disability outcomes. Spine1994; 19: 881–887.
7.
7 Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra PU, Goeken LNH, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB. Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil2004; 26: 162–165.
8.
8 Cohen, J, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1988: 1–27.
9.
9 Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Strom BL. Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain2000; 88: 287–294.
11 Takeyachi Y, Konno S, Otani K et al. Correlation of low back pain with functional status, general health perception, social participation, subjective happiness, and patient satisfaction. Spine2003; 28: 1461–1467.
12.
12 Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJB. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine1999; 24: 1805–1812.
13.
13 Vet de HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PM. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2001; 17: 479–487.
14.
14 Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther2002; 82:8–24.
15.
15 Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland–Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther1998; 78: 1197–1207.
16.
16 Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E. Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther1994; 74: 528–533.
17.
17 Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland–Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther1998; 78: 1186–1196.
18.
18 Gommans IHB, Koes BW, Tulder van MW. Validiteit en responsiviteit Nederlandstalige Roland Disability Questionnaire. Vragenlijst naar functionele status bij patiënten met lage rugpijn. (Validity and Responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Roland Disability Questionnaire. A functional status questionnaire for patients with low back pain.)Ned Tijds Fysiother1997; 107:28–33.
19.
19 Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Spine1995; 20: 341–352.
20.
20 Patrick DL, Deyo R, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine1995; 20: 1899–1909.
21.
21 Stratford PW, Binkley J, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther1996; 76: 1109–1123.
22.
22 Beurskens AJ, Vet de HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain. A comparison of different instruments. Pain1996; 65:71–16.
23.
23 Deyo R, Centor R. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Disabil1986; 39: 897–906.
24.
24 Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res2003; 12: 349–362.
25.
25 Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness if five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol1997; 50:79–93.
26.
26 Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of health status measure. Med Care1981; 19: 787–805.
27.
27 Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J2003; 12:12–20.
28.
28 Sackett, DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology, a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston/Toronto/London: Little, Brown and Company, 1991.
29.
29 Gronblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P et al. Intercorrelation and test–retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain1993; 9: 189–195.
30.
30 Koho P, Aho S, Watson P, Hurri H. Assessment of chronic pain behaviour: reliability of the method and its relationship with perceived disability, physical impairment and function. J Rehabil Med2001; 33: 128–132.
31.
31 Linton SJ, Melin L. The accuracy of remembering chronic pain. Pain1982; 13: 281–285.
32.
32 Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Disabil1987; 40: 171–178.
33.
33 Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland–Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther1996; 76: 359–365.
