Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

Objective To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). Design Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. Methods Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. Results Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. Conclusion The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):457–469. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10802