Reliability and Validity Study of the Finnish Version 2.0 of the Oswestry Disability Index

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Jyväskylä Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 02/2011; 36(4):332-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cdd702
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prospective clinical validation study.
The aims of this study were to translate into Finnish and culturally adapt and study the psycho-metric properties of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.0.
The ODI is one of the most commonly reported back-specific disability questionnaires. It is widely used both in clinical work and in medical studies. To date, no validated Finnish version of the ODI version 2.0 has been reported.
The ODI version 2.0 was translated into the Finnish language. A total of 115 patients with back pain, referred by the primary care physician to the outpatient clinic of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation, were recruited for this study. The patients answered a questionnaire package that included the Finnish ODI 2.0, Back Pain Questionnaire for Visual Analogue Assessment (Million-VAS), Visual Analogue Scales of back and leg pain (VASback, VASleg), the Depressions Scale, and a question on their subjectively perceived health. The package was administered twice; 2 weeks before and at the arrival to the clinic.
Reproducibility of the ODI was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85-0.94) and the internal consistency was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.81-0.90). Factor analysis showed that the ODI was loaded on 2 factors, which explained 51% of the total variance. In testing convergent validity ODI correlated with Million-VAS, r = 0.75 (95% CI = 0.64-0.84); VASback, r = 0.48 (95% CI = 0.32-0.62); and VAS leg, r = 0.41 (95% CI = 0.23-0.57).
The Finnish ODI version 2.0 proved to be a valid and reliable instrument that showed psychometric properties comparable with the original English version. Therefore, it can be used in assessing the disability among Finnish-speaking patients with back pain for both clinical and scientific purposes.

Download full-text


Available from: Petri Salo, Aug 11, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to clarify the association of fear of movement and physical activity among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The sample comprised 93 patients participating in a multidisciplinary pain management programme. The purpose of the programme was to regain overall functioning by means of physical and functional exercises, education and personal pain management training. Tampa Scale of Kinesio-phobia and Leisure Time Physical Activity questionnaires were completed at baseline, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. At baseline, low and medium kinesiophobia groups showed more leisure-time physical activity than did the high kinesiophobia group (p = 0.024). At a 6-month follow-up the high kinesiophobia group had increased their physical activity index to the level of the low and medium kinesiophobia groups and maintained that change to 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes of the change in the physical activity index and pain intensity at the 12-month follow-up were both moderate (0.56) in the high kinesiophobia group. The change in physical activity and kinesiophobia was associated with the level of baseline kinesiophobia. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to produce favourable effects in terms of physical activity and pain among the high kinesiophobia patients.
    Journal of rehabilitation medicine: official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 09/2011; 43(9):794-9. DOI:10.2340/16501977-0850 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Retrospective assessment of surgery outcome is considered problematic. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of a retrospective outcome assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery with reference to prospective outcome scale measurements. Outcome of surgery from 100 lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients was evaluated retrospectively from patient files of a 3-month outpatient visit performed according to a standard clinical protocol by two independent researchers. In the retrospective analysis, outcome was graded as 2 = good if the clinical condition had clearly improved, 1 = moderate if it had just slightly improved, 0 = poor if it had not improved or was even worse than before the surgical treatment (Retrospective 3- point scale). A prospectively assessed Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire (ODI), Visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and a patient satisfaction questionnaire were used as references of standards. Reproducibility of the measurements was evaluated. The retrospective 3-point scale correlated with ODI (r = 0.528; P < 0.001) and VAS (r = 0.368; P < 0.001). The agreement was better in the good and poor outcome than in the moderate outcome. Retrospective 3-point scale demonstrated substantial intra-rater and inter-rater repeatability (κ = 0.682, P < 0.001 and κ = 0.630, P < 0.001, respectively). Retrospective assessment of spinal surgery outcome is highly reproducible. Accuracy is highest in the patients with poor and good surgical result.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 05/2012; 13:83. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-13-83 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A systematic review of the literature was performed to establish whether direct repair of the pars defect or intervertebral fusion achieves better Oswestry Disability Index scores in adolescent spondylolysis or low-grade spondylolisthesis. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, reporting a minimum total of 80 direct repairs and 108 fusions because of presumed replication of data between studies. Little statistically or clinically significant difference could be established between the two interventions. The only comparative study showed improved long-term outcome with fusion. Further well-designed prospective comparative studies are required to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.
    Journal of pediatric orthopaedics. Part B / European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America 06/2012; 21(6):596-601. DOI:10.1097/BPB.0b013e328355393d · 0.66 Impact Factor
Show more