Psychometric Properties of Commonly Used Low Back Disability Questionnaires: Are They Useful for Older Adults with Low Back Pain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of two commonly used low back pain (LBP) disability questionnaires in a sample solely comprising community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Single-group repeated measures design. SETTING: Four continuing care retirement communities in Maryland and in Virginia. Participants. Convenience sample of 107 community-dwelling men and women (71.9%) aged 62 years or older with current LBP. Outcome Measures. All participants completed modified Oswestry Disability (mOSW) and Quebec Back Pain Disability (QUE) questionnaires, as well as the Medical Outcomes Survey Short-Form 36 questionnaire at baseline. At follow-up, 56 participants completed the mOSW and the QUE for reliability assessment. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the mOSW and QUE were excellent with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.97), respectively. Participants with high pain severity and high levels of functional limitation had higher scores on the mOSW (P < 0.0001) and QUE (P < 0.001) scales than other participants, which represents good construct validity for both scales. The threshold for minimum detectable change is 10.66 points for the mOSW and 11.04 points for the QUE. Both questionnaires had sufficient scale width to accurately measure changes in patient status. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that both questionnaires have excellent test-retest reliability and good construct validity when used to evaluate LBP-related disability for older adults with varying degrees of LBP. Neither questionnaire appears to have superior psychometric properties; therefore, both the Oswestry and Quebec can be recommended for use among geriatric patients with LBP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".