Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 10/2005

01-12-2005 | Original Article

Psychometric properties of the functional rating index in patients with low back pain

Authors: Maj John D. Childs, Sara R. Piva

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Main Problem: The purpose of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the functional rating index (FRI), establish the instrument’s minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and compare its psychometric properties with the Oswestry questionnaire. Methods: This was a cohort study of patients with low back pain (LBP) undergoing physical therapy. One thirty one patients with a primary complaint of LBP participating in a clinical trial were assessed at baseline and at a 1- and 4-week follow-up. Test-re-test reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient, and validity was examined by determining the association between the FRI and Oswestry, a concurrent measure of disability. Responsiveness was examined by calculating the standard error of the measure, minimum detectable change, area under a receiver operating characteristic curve, and minimum clinically important difference. Changes in clinical status at each follow-up period were compared to the average of the patient and therapist’s perceived improvement using the 15-point global rating of change scale. Results: Test-retest reliability of the FRI was moderate, with an intraclass correlation coefficient equal to 0.63 (0.35, 0.80). Validity of the FRI was supported by a moderate correlation between the FRI and Oswestry (r=0.67, P<0.001). Area under the curve for the FRI was 0.93 (0.89, 0.98), and the minimum clinically important difference was approximately nine points. Conclusions: The FRI is less reliable than the Oswestry but appears to have comparable validity and responsiveness. Before the FRI can be recommended for widespread use in patients with neck and low back pain, it should be further tested in patients with neck pain.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Phillips WR (1996) Low back pain. A primary care challenge. Spine 21:2826–2832 Deyo RA, Phillips WR (1996) Low back pain. A primary care challenge. Spine 21:2826–2832
2.
go back to reference Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (2000) The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine 25:1109–1117 Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (2000) The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine 25:1109–1117
3.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2953 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2953
4.
go back to reference Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415 Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415
5.
go back to reference Feise RJ, Michael MJ (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26:78–86 Feise RJ, Michael MJ (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26:78–86
6.
go back to reference Bayar B, Bayar K, Yakut E, Yakut Y (2004) Reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index in older people with low back pain: preliminary report. Aging Clin Exp Res 16:49–52 Bayar B, Bayar K, Yakut E, Yakut Y (2004) Reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index in older people with low back pain: preliminary report. Aging Clin Exp Res 16:49–52
7.
go back to reference Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Delitto A, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR (2004) Validation of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med (in Press) Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Delitto A, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR (2004) Validation of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med (in Press)
8.
go back to reference Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ (2001) A comparison of a modified oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788 Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ (2001) A comparison of a modified oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788
9.
go back to reference Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415 Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415
10.
go back to reference Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P (1993) Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 20:561–565 Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P (1993) Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 20:561–565
11.
go back to reference Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE (1994) Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47:81–87 Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE (1994) Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47:81–87
12.
go back to reference Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428
13.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, TierneyWM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873 Wyrwich KW, TierneyWM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873
14.
go back to reference Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K (1994) Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 74:777–788 Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K (1994) Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 74:777–788
15.
go back to reference Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Lankhorst GJ (1993) The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther 73:386–395 Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Lankhorst GJ (1993) The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther 73:386–395
16.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469–478 Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469–478
17.
go back to reference Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (2000) Statistics with confidence 2nd edn. British Medical Journal Bristol Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (2000) Statistics with confidence 2nd edn. British Medical Journal Bristol
18.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906 Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906
19.
go back to reference Kopec JA, Esdaile JM (1995) Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine 20:1943–1949 Kopec JA, Esdaile JM (1995) Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine 20:1943–1949
20.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL (1996) Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 76:1109–1123 Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL (1996) Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 76:1109–1123
21.
go back to reference Cherkin D (2001) Point of view: functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26:87 Cherkin D (2001) Point of view: functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26:87
22.
go back to reference Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412 Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412
23.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196 Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196
24.
go back to reference Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76 Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76
25.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Finch E, Solomon P (1996) Using the Roland-Morris Questionnaire to make decisions about individual patients. Physiother Can 48:107–110 Stratford PW, Finch E, Solomon P (1996) Using the Roland-Morris Questionnaire to make decisions about individual patients. Physiother Can 48:107–110
26.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J (1996) Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 76:359–365 Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J (1996) Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 76:359–365
Metadata
Title
Psychometric properties of the functional rating index in patients with low back pain
Authors
Maj John D. Childs
Sara R. Piva
Publication date
01-12-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2005
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0900-z

Other articles of this Issue 10/2005

European Spine Journal 10/2005 Go to the issue