Related scale:


	Subject of the scale: Low back pain

Dallas Pain Questionnaire		Download / Print : PDF

Composite scale of the self-questionnaire type specific to lumbago, much used since the 90s because of its speed (5 minutes). The objective is to measure the pain and functional repercussions of lumbago on the simple actions of daily life by bringing in a cognitive-behavioural dimension for chronic pain (physical, psychological and social).

The patient must reply to 4 groups of separate questions concerning 1) daily activities (7 questions); 2) professional activities and leisure activity (3 questions); 3) anxiety/depression (3 questions); and 4) sociability (3 questions). A total of 16 questions, using an analogue visual scale for each question.

The patient must evaluate the level of pain associated with the question and mark the straight line of the EVA on the sheet by an X.

> Access to the scale is free

Criteria	Psychometric properties		References
Validity	Face validity
	Content validity		[1]
	Criterion validity	Concurrent validity
		Predictive validity	[1]
	Construct validity	Convergent validity
		Divergent validity
		Discriminant validity (sensitivity and distinctiveness)
Reliability	Intra-rater reliability
	Inter-rater reliability
	Test-retest		[1]
Internal consistency (alpha)			[1]
Responsiveness			[2]

General comment on reliability:

The construct validity has shown significant correlation with the other physical and psychological criteria as well as a significant discriminatory validity between acute lumbago and non-acute. The predictive validity of the scores enables targeting new cases of lumbago: if the dimensions "daily activity" and "work-leisure" are >50%, and the "anxiety-depression" dimensions and social behaviour are <50%, a medical treatment will be suggested. If the dimensions are the inverse, it seems appropriate to favour a behavioural treatment. If all the dimensions are >50%, a mixed treatment will be proposed.

Reference update:

To notify us of a missing reference, please use: contact@scale-library.com

For more details of the scale, the comments or the psychometric properties presented here, please contact Dr. François GENET : francois.genet@rpc.aphp.fr

References: Inaugural references: [1] Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, McCoy CE. The development of Dallas pain questionnaire. Spine 1989; 14: 515-16. Psychometric references: [2] Haas M, Jacob GE, Raphael R, Petzing K. Low back pain outcome measurement assessment in chiropractic teaching clinics: responsiveness and applicability of two functional disbility questionnaire. J Manip Physiol Ther 1995;18:79-87.

Finding a clinical assessment scale - Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Search by subject

Adult Child/Teenager

List of scales

Available scales and analyses
Click here

Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS)

Partnership

This work is supported by Ipsen

Report a missing scale


< Back	Subject of the scale: Low back pain

The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire		Download / Print : PDF

Self-administered questionnaire of US/British origin, the objective of which is to measure the functional impact of lumbago in order to determine its natural progression.

This scale was established from the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the specificity for lumbago has been improved by adding the wording "because of your back".

The time taken is short, about 5 minutes.

It consists of 24 items concerning daily life activities graded from 0 to 1 point. The addition of the scores enables an assessment from 0 to 24.

There are numerous variables with a reduction of items: RDQ-23, RDQ-18, RDQ-16, RDQ-12, one version "twice": RDQ (two) to measure the variation at the end of 4 weeks, the RDQ7p in which a Liekert scale 7 points is added [8].

> Access to the scale is free

Criteria	Psychometric properties		References
Validity	Face validity
	Content validity
	Criterion validity	Concurrent validity
		Predictive validity
	Construct validity	Convergent validity	[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
		Divergent validity
		Discriminant validity (sensitivity and distinctiveness)
Reliability	Intra-rater reliability
	Inter-rater reliability
	Test-retest		[6] [7]
Internal consistency (alpha)			[2] [6]
Responsiveness			[6] [7]

General comment on reliability:

The assessment of the "construct validity" has shown significant correlation with the physical tests, pain and the Oswestry self-questionnaire.

Reference update:

To notify us of a missing reference, please use: contact@scale-library.com

Dallas Pain Questionnaire

The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

Oswestry Disability Index

For more details of the scale, the comments or the psychometric properties presented here, please contact Dr. François GENET : francois.genet@rpc.aphp.fr

Inaugural references:

[1] Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4.

Psychometric references:

[2] Waddell G, Main CJ. Assessment of severity in low-back disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Mar;9(2):204-8.

[3] Deyo RA. Comparative validity of the Sickness Impact Profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain. Spine 1986;11:951-4.

[4] Jensen MP, Strom SE, Turner S, Romano JM.Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patient. Pain 1992;50:157-62.

[5] Co Y, Eaton S, MaxwellMW. The relationship betveen the St Thomas and Oswestry disability scores and the severity of low back pain. J Manip Physiol Ther 1993;16:14-8.

[6] Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996 Apr;76(4):359-65; discussion 366-8.

[7] Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):8-24.

[8] Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull. 2010;94:81-144. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldp052. Epub 2010 Jan 10. Review.