Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concurrent Validity of Questionnaire and Performance-Based Disability Measurements in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity of two approaches to disability measurement in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CLBP). It was hypothesized that if both are measuring the same construct, the instruments would lead to similar disability results and would correlate strongly (r > 0.75). The study compared the results of self-reported and performance-based measures of disability in 64 consecutive patients with CLBP. Participants mean age was 38.0 years, the mean duration of the current episode of back pain 9.9 months, and 90% were off work due to CLBP. The self-report measures used were: the Roland Disability Questionnaire (Roland); the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry); and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Quebec). Performance was measured using the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). The mean scores from the self-report measure are as follows: Roland 13.5 (scale 0–24), Oswestry 28.2 (scale 0–100), Quebec 37.8 (scale 0–100) consistent with moderate to severe disability. In contrast the results from the performance-based measures suggested that the subjects should be able to work at a physical intensity level of moderate to heavy. Little to moderate correlation was observed between the self-report and performance-based measures (Spearman rank correlations: Roland-FCE (−0.20), p > 0.05; Oswestry-FCE (−0.52), p < 0.01; Quebec-FCE (−0.50), p < 0.01). Results are interpreted to suggest that both performance-based and self-report measures of disability should be used in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the disability in patients with CLBP.

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. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI. The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine 1995b; 20: 341-352.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pfeiffer D. The problem of disability definition: Again. Disab Rehabil 1999; 21: 392-395.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wunderlich GS (ed.). Measuring functional capacity and work requirements; summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983; 8: 141-144.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4th edn., Rev. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1991.

  6. Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-273.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM. Spine update: Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine 1995a; 20: 1943-1949.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ, van der Heijden GJ, Knipschild PG. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain: Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine 1995; 20: 1017-1028.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deyo RA. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69: 1044-1053.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Korff Mvon, Waddell G. Outcome measures for low back pain research. Spine 1998; 23: 2003-2013.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Abdel-Moty E, FishbainDA, Khalil TM, Sadek S, Cutler R, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL. Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 168-173.

    Google Scholar 

  12. FishbainDA, Abdel-Moty E, Cutler R, Khalil TM, Saedek S, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL. Measuring residual functional capacity in chronic low back pain patients based on the dictionary of occupational titles. Spine 1994; 19: 872-880.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fishbain DA, Khalil TM, Abdel-Moty E, Cutler R, Sadek S, Steele-Rosomoff R, Rosomoff HL. Physician limitations when assessing work capacity: A review. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil 1995; 5: 107-113.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Isernhagen SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 1992; 2: 157-168.

    Google Scholar 

  15. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning and Disability, Beta-2 draft, Full Version, Geneva, World Health Organisation, 1999.

  16. Nachemson A, Vingard E. Assessment of patients with back and neck pain: A best-evidence synthesis. In: Nachemson A, Jonsson E, eds. Neck and back pain: The scientific evidence of causes, diagnostics, and treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000, pp. 189-236.

    Google Scholar 

  17. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE. A critical review of Functional Capacity Evaluations. Phys Ther 1998; 78: 852-866.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reneman MF, Jaegers SMHJ, Muskee C, Schröer HTh, Göeken LNH. Functional Capacity Evaluation: Toepassing in Nederland? TBV 1997; 5: 139-146.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cooke C, Dusik LA, Menard MR, Fairburn SM, Beach GN. Relationship of performance on the ERGOS work simulator to illness behavior in a workers' compensation population with low back versus limb injury. JOM 1994; 36: 757-762.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan GM, Wurtele SK, Gillis D. Maximal effort during Functional Capacity Evaluations: An examination of psychological factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 161-164.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lechner DE, Bradbury SF, Bradley LA. Detecting sincerity of effort: A summary of methods and approaches. Phys Ther 1998; 8: 867-888.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reneman MF, Dijkstra SJ, Jorritsma W, Muskee C, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Göeken LNH. Assessment and treatment of chronic work-related pain disorders in an outpatient university rehabilitation setting in the Netherlands. Work 2001; 16: 23-30.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Isernhagen Work Systems. Manual Functional Capacity Evaluation. Duluth, MN: Isernhagen & Associates, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dusik AL, Menard MR, Cooke C, Fairburn SM, Beach GN. Concurrent validity of the ERGOS work simulator versus conventional functional capacity evaluation techniques in a workers' compensation population. JOM 1993; 35: 759-767.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lechner DE, Jackson RJ, Roth DL, Straaton KV. Reliability and validity of a newly developed test of physical work performance. JOM 1994; 36: 997-1004.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mul CAM, Douwes M, Hazelet AM, Wevers CWJ. Schadebeoordeling en FCE-methoden. Hoofddorp: TNO Arbeid, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 125-152.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gross DG. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 364-371.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL, Matheson LM. Reliability of independent observer judgements of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical Functional Capacity Evaluation. Work 1999; 12: 145-150.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Smith RL. Therapists' ability to identify safe maximum lifting in low back pain patients during functional capacity evaluation. JOSPT 1994; 19: 277-281.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reneman MF, Jaegers SMHJ, Westmaas M, Göeken LNH. The reliability of determining effort level of lifting and carrying in a functional capacity evaluation. WORK 2002; 18: 23-28.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Westmaas M, Göeken LNH. Test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehabil.

  33. Reneman MF, Bults MMWE, Engbers LH, Mulders KKG, Goeken LNH. Maximum holding times and perception of static elevated work and forward bending in healthy young adults. JOR 2001; 11: 87-97.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dijkink A, Kuis M.Onderzoek naar de betrouwbaarheid van de Functional Capacity Evaluation van Isernhagen [research report]. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen, Institute for Movement Sciences, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Spitzer WO, (ed.). Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity related spinal disorders: A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on spinal disorders. Spine 1987; 12: 1-59.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Waddell G, McCulloch JA, Kummel E, Venner RM. Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine 1980; 5: 117-125.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric systems for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Measurement properties of the RM-18. Spine 1998; 22: 2416-2421.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fordyce WE (ed.). Back pain in the work place. Management of disability in nonspecific conditions. A report of the task force on pain in the work place of the International Association of the Study of Pain. Seattle, WA: IASP press, 1995.

  40. Simmons M. Physical function and physical performance in patients with pain: What are the measures and what do they mean. In: Syllabus IASP refresher courses on pain management held in conjunction with the 9th world congress on pain, Vienna, Austria, Aug. 22-27, 1999, pp. 127-136.

  41. Watson PJ. Non-physiological determinants of physical performance in musculoskeletal pain. In: Syllabus IASP refresher courses on pain management held in conjunction with the 9th world congress on pain, Vienna, Austria, Aug. 22-27, 1999.

  42. Hadler NM. If you have to prove you are ill, you can't get well. Spine 1996; 21: 2397-2400.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Piela CR, Hallenberg KK, Geoghegan AE, Monsein MR, Lindgren BR. Prediction of functional capacities. Work 1996; 6: 107-113.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wijlhuizen GJ, Ooijenduik W. Measuring disability, the agreement between self evaluation and observation of performance. Disab Rehabil 1999; 21: 61-67.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Verbunt JA, Westerterp KR, van der Heyden GJ, Seelen HA, Vlaeyen JW, Knottnerus JA. Physical activity in daily life in patients with chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 726-730.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lee CE, Simmonds MJ, Novy DM, Jones S. Self-reports and clinician measured function among patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 227-231.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Rehabilitation, University Hospital Groningen, Haren, The, Netherlands

    Michiel F. Reneman, Wim Jorritsma & Ludwig N.H. Göeken

  2. Department of Occupational Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jan M.H. Schellekens

  3. Institute for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Ludwig N.H. Göeken

Authors
  1. Michiel F. Reneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Jorritsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan M.H. Schellekens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ludwig N.H. Göeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michiel F. Reneman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reneman, M.F., Jorritsma, W., Schellekens, J.M. et al. Concurrent Validity of Questionnaire and Performance-Based Disability Measurements in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. J Occup Rehabil 12, 119–129 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016834409773

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016834409773

Search

Navigation