Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations

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

Abstract

Over the past 10 years, a plethora of back-specific patient-orientated outcome measures have appeared in the literature. Standardisation has been advocated by an expert panel of researchers proposing a core set of instruments. Of the condition-specific questionnaires the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is recommended for use with low back pain (LBP) patients. To date, no Danish version of the ODI exists which has been cross-culturally adapted, validated and published in the peer-reviewed literature. A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ODI for the Danish language was carried out according to established guidelines: 233 patients [half of the patients were seen in the primary sector (PrS) and half in the secondary sector (SeS) of the Danish health care system] with LBP and/or leg pain completed a questionnaire booklet at baseline, 1 day or 1 week and 8 weeks follow-up. The booklet contained the Danish version of the ODI, along with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, the LBP Rating Scale, the SF36 (physical function and bodily pain scales) and a global pain rating. For the ODI test–retest analysis (93 stable patients) resulted in an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91, a mean difference of 0.8 and 95% limits of agreements of − 11.5 to + 13. Thus, a worsening greater than 12 points and improvement greater than 13 points can be considered a “real” change above the measurement error. A substantial floor effect was found in PrS patients (14.1%). The ODI showed satisfactory cross-sectional discriminant validity when compared to the external measures. Concurrent validity of the ODI revealed: (a) a 10% and 21% lower ODI score compared to the disability and pain measures, respectively, (b) a poorer differentiation of patient disabilities and (c) an acceptable individual ODI score level compared to the external measures. Longitudinal external construct validity showed moderate correlations (range 0.56–0.78). We conclude that the Danish version of the ODI is both a valid and reliable outcome instrument in two LBP patient populations. The ODI is probably most appropriate for use in SeS 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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Patrick DL, Deyo RA (1989) Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health-status and quality of life. Med Care 27:S217–S232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1995) Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:1369–1378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lurie J (2000) A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine 25:3125–3129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, Skeith K, Vincent D (2000) Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39:783–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2005) Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess?: a systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine 30:130–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B et al (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Muller U, Roeder C, Dubs L, Duetz MS, Greenough CG (2004) Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: Scale construction. Eur Spine J 13:314–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG (2004) Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J 13:301–313

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baker D., Pynsent PB, Fairbank JC (1989) The Oswestry Disability Index revisited: its reliability, repeatability and validity, and a comparison with the St Thomas’s Disability Index. In: Roland M, Jenner J (eds) Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 174–186

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hudson-Cook N, Tomes-Nicholson K, Breen A (1989) A revised Oswestry disability questionnaire. In: Roland M, Jenner J (eds) Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 187–204

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oswestry Disability Index homepage. http://www.orthosurg.org.uk/odi/ (accessed on: 20-1-2006)

  18. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Malmros B, Mortensen L, Jensen MB, Charles P (1998) Positive effects of physiotherapy on chronic pain and performance in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 8:215–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Malmros B, Jensen MB, Charles P, Mortensen LS (1999) Effect of specific physiotherapy on chronic pain, functional level and quality of life in osteoporosis. A prospective randomized single-blind placebo-controlled study (in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger 161:4636–4641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Christensen TH, Bliddal H, Hansen SE, Jensen EM, Jensen H, Jensen R et al (1993) Severe low-back pain. I: Clinical assessment of two weeks conservative therapy. Scand J Rheumatol 22:25–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B, Vinterberg H, Kreiner S, Jordan A (1994) Low back pain rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain 57:317–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bjorner JB, Thunedborg K, Kristensen TS, Modvig J, Bech P (1998) The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: translation and preliminary validity studies. J Clin Epidemiol 51:991–999

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lonnberg F (1997) The management of back problems among the population. I. Contact patterns and therapeutic routines (in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger 159:2207–2214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB (1995) Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 20:1899–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Albert HB, Jensen AM, Dahl D, Rasmussen MN (2003) Criteria validation of the Roland Morris questionnaire. A Danish translation of the international scale for the assessment of functional level in patients with low back pain and sciatica (in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger 165:1875–1880

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, Damsgaard MT, Bech P (1998) Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1189–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Groenvold M (1998) Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1001–1011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H (1999) Capturing the patient’s view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 282:1157–1162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Taylor DW (1985) Should study subjects see their previous responses. J Chronic Dis 38:1003–1007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller JL, Singer J (1989) Should study subjects see their previous responses—data from a randomized control trial. J Clin Epidemiol 42:913–920

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Coste J, Delecoeuillerie G, Cohen dL, Le Parc JM, Paolaggi JB (1994) Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain: an inception cohort study in primary care practice. BMJ 308:577–580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Roland MO, Morrell DC, Morris RW (1983) Can general practitioners predict the outcome of episodes of back pain? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 286:523–525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Bech P, Rasmussen NK, Modvig J et al (1997) Danish Manual to the SF36. LIF, Lægemiddelindutriforeningen

  37. Streiner DL, Norman GR (2003) Health measurment scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  38. Scientific Advisory Committee (1995) Instrument Review Criteria. Med Outcomes Trust Bull 3:I–IV

    Google Scholar 

  39. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Mulit-item scales. In: Fayers PM, Machin D (eds) Quality of life. Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, New York, pp 72–90

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bland JM, Altman DG (2003) Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:85–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL et al (1995) The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine 20:341–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Leclaire R, Blier F, Fortin L, Proulx R (1997) A cross-sectional study comparing the Oswestry and Roland-Morris functional disability scales in two populations of patients with low back pain of different levels of severity. Spine 22:68–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Stratford PW, Binkley JM (2000) A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. J Rheumatol 27:1928–1936

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM (2003) Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D (2005) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15(1):55–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fisher K, Johnston M (1997) Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Prac 13:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hsieh CY, Phillips RB, Adams AH, Pope MH (1992) Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 15:4–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Boscainos PJ, Sapkas G, Stilianessi E, Prouskas K, Papadakis SA (2003) Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability questionnaires. Clin Orthop 411:40–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability index. J Rehabil Med 35:241–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Stratford PW, Binkley JM (1999) Applying the results of self-report measures to individual patients: an example using the Roland-Morris questionnaire. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29:232–239

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu LM, Barker K, Collins R (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 330:1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Anthony Carter, Joseph O’Neill, Jytte Johannesen and Lotte O’Neill for participating in the expert committee group and Jytte Johannesen for administering the questionnaires. Furthermore, we would like to thank the management and staff at Backcenter Funen for their enthusiastic participation in the project. Special thanks to the seven chiropractic clinics for their involvement in recruiting patients for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Henrik Hein Lauridsen, Jan Hartvigsen & Niels Grunnet-Nilsson

  2. Clinical Locomotion Science, Odense, Denmark

    Henrik Hein Lauridsen, Jan Hartvigsen, Claus Manniche & Niels Grunnet-Nilsson

  3. Nordic Institute for Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark

    Jan Hartvigsen

  4. Backcenter Funen, Ringe, Denmark

    Claus Manniche

  5. Department of Statistics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Lars Korsholm

Authors
  1. Henrik Hein Lauridsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Hartvigsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claus Manniche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Korsholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Hein Lauridsen.

Additional information

Part 2 of this article is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0128-6

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lauridsen, H.H., Hartvigsen, J., Manniche, C. et al. Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J 15, 1705–1716 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0117-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0117-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation