Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-02-2017 | Original Article

The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?

Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato, Chris G. Maher, Bruno T. Saragiotto, Mark J. Catley, James H. McAuley

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2017

Abstract

Purpose

The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is one of the most recommended questionnaires to assess disability. Some previous studies support the assumption that the RMDQ is a unidimensional measure; however, recent studies have suggested that this measure has more than one domain and should be considered as a multidimensional scale. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the structure of the RMDQ in a large sample of patients with low back pain using two different statistical approaches.

Methods

We analysed existing datasets from previous clinical studies. We assessed unidimensionality using Rasch analysis of item fit statistics and through principle component analysis of residuals. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesis of a 3-factor solution.

Results

We included data from 2826 patients with non-specific low back pain. The average age of all participants included was 46.4 years, and half of the participants were women (50.1%). The Rasch analysis model showed that the RMDQ is unidimensional, with only two items demonstrating slight excessive positive outfit. Results from the CFA suggested poor fit to the data of a 3-factor solution.

Conclusions

We recommend that the RMDQ should still be used as a unidimensional scale for measuring disability as the only construct.

Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ, van der Heijden GJ, Knipschild PG (1995) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(9):1017–1028CrossRef

Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3100–3103CrossRef

Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19(4):593–607. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 CrossRefPubMed

Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3115–3124CrossRef

Kopec JA (2000) Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain: a review of back-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3110–3114CrossRef

Grotle M, Wilkens P, Garratt AM, Scheel I, Storheim K (2013) Which Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire? Rasch analysis of four different versions tested in a Norwegian population. J Rehabil Med 45(7):670–677. doi:10.2340/16501977-1166 CrossRefPubMed

The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire website. http://www.rmdq.org. Accessed 7 Dec 2015

Macedo LG, Maher CG, Latimer J, Hancock MJ, Machado LA, McAuley JH (2011) Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Eur Spine J 20(3):458–463. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1608-2 CrossRefPubMed

Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Pozzi GC, Ribeiro RN (2007) Psychometric characteristics of the Brazilian–Portuguese versions of the Functional Rating Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(17):1902–1907. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811eab33 CrossRef

10.

Hiyama A, Watanabe M, Katoh H, Sato M, Sakai D, Mochida J (2016) Effect of depression and neuropathic pain using questionnaires on quality of life in patients with low back pain; cross-sectional retrospective study. Eur Spine J 25(9):2750–2760. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4432-5 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Stratford PW, Riddle DL (2016) A Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire target value to distinguish between functional and dysfunctional states in people with low back pain. Physiother Can 68(1):29–35. doi:10.3138/ptc.2014-85 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kent P, Grotle M, Dunn KM, Albert HB, Lauridsen HH (2015) Rasch analysis of the 23-item version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. J Rehabil Med 47(4):356–364. doi:10.2340/16501977-1935 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Garratt AM, United Kingdom Back Pain E, Manipulation T (2003) Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(1):79–84. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000038164.82695.A3 CrossRef

14.

Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H (2001) Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(24):2738–2743CrossRef

15.

Nambi SG (2013) Reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of Guajarati version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 26(2):149–153. doi:10.3233/BMR-2012-00359 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Magnussen LH, Lygren H, Strand LI, Hagen EM, Breivik K (2015) Reconsidering the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: time for a multidimensional framework? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(4):257–263. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000705 CrossRef

17.

Chen WH, Lenderking W, Jin Y, Wyrwich KW, Gelhorn H, Revicki DA (2014) Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Qual Life Res 23(2):485–493. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bond T, Fox C (2007) Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

19.

Tennant A, Conaghan PG (2007) The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 57(8):1358–1362. doi:10.1002/art.23108 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Yu CY (2002) Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continous outcomes. University of California, Los Angeles

21.

Davidson M (2009) Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 18(4):473–481. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9456-4 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Stroud MW, McKnight PE, Jensen MP (2004) Assessment of self-reported physical activity in patients with chronic pain: development of an abbreviated Roland–Morris disability scale. J Pain 5(5):257–263. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2004.04.002 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mielenz TJ, Carey TS, Edwards MC (2015) Item response theory analysis of the modified Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire in a population-based study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(6):E366–E371. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000764 CrossRef

Title: The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?
Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato
Chris G. Maher
Bruno T. Saragiotto
Mark J. Catley
James H. McAuley
Publication date: 01-02-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4890-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)

Particulate and non-particulate steroids in spinal epidurals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

A novel use of the Spine Tango registry to evaluate selection bias in patient recruitment into clinical studies: an analysis of patients participating in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)

Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain