Psychometric evaluation of the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain: factor and Mokken analyses

Chin-Pang Lee, Tsai-Sheng Fu, Chia-Yih Liu, Ching-I Hung, Chin-Pang Lee, Tsai-Sheng Fu, Chia-Yih Liu, Ching-I Hung

Abstract

Background: Disputes exist regarding the psychometric properties of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The present study was to examine the reliability, validity, and dimensionality of a Chinese version of the ODI version 2.1 in a sample of 225 adult orthopedic outpatients with chronic low back pain [mean age (SD): 40.7 (11.4) years].

Methods: We conducted reliability analysis, exploratory bifactor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and Mokken scale analysis of the ODI. To validate the ODI, we used the Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and visual analog scale (VAS).

Results: The reliability, and discriminant and construct validities of the ODI was good. The fit statistics of the unidimensional model of the ODI were inadequate. The ODI was a weak Mokken scale (Hs = 0.31).

Conclusions: The ODI was a reliable and valid scale suitable for measurement of disability in patients with low back pain. But the ODI seemed to be multidimensional that was against the use of the raw score of the ODI as a measurement of disability.

Keywords: Dimensionality; Low back pain; Psychometrics; Reliability; The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In accordance with Taiwan law, the study protocol was approved by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board (reference number: 97-0894B, approved on 2008/07/01). All patients provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable (the manuscript does not contain any individual persons data).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological Features of Chronic Low-Back Pain. Lancet. 1999;354:581–585. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4.
    1. Sheahan PJ, Nelson-Wong EJ, Fischer SL. A Review of Culturally Adapted Versions of the Oswestry Disability Index: The Adaptation Process, Construct Validity, Test-Retest Reliability and Internal Consistency. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:2367–2374. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1019647.
    1. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–2953. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide To Their Development and Use. 4. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Terwee CB, Wells GA, Tugwell P, Ostelo RW. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: Which Has Better Measurement Properties for Measuring Physical Functioning in Nonspecific Low Back Pain? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther. 2016;96:1620–1637. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150420.
    1. Brodke DS, Vadim G, Lawrence BD, Ryan SW. Neese A, Hung M. Oswestry Disability Index: A Psychometric Analysis with 1,610 Patients. Spine J. 2017;17:321–327. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.09.020.
    1. Lu Y-M, Wu Y-Y, Hsieh C-L, Lin C-L, Hwang S-L, Cheng K-I, et al. Measurement Precision of the Disability for Back Pain Scale-by Applying Rasch Analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-119.
    1. Lochhead LE, MacMillan PD. Psychometric Properties of the Oswestry Disability Index: Rasch Analysis of Responses in a Work-Disabled Population. Work. 2013;46:67–76.
    1. Dawson AP, Steele EJ, Hodges PW, Stewart S. Utility of the Oswestry Disability Index for Studies of Back Pain Related Disability in Nurses: evaluation of Psychometric and Measurement Properties. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47:604–607. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.013.
    1. Lue Y-J, Hsieh C-L, Huang M-H, Lin G-T, Lu Y-M. Development of a Chinese Version of the Oswestry Disability Index Version 2.1. Spine. 2008;33:2354–2360. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818018d8.
    1. Sijtsma K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74:107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.
    1. Wang H-Y, Fu T-S, Hsu S-C, Hung C-I. Association of Depression with Sleep Quality Might be Greater Than that of Pain Intensity among Outpatients with Chronic Low Back Pain. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:1993–1998. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S110162.
    1. First MB, Spitzer RL, Miriam G, Williams JB. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition (SCID-I/P) New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2002.
    1. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. 3. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc.; 2005.
    1. Lu J-F, Tseng H-M, Tsai Y-J. Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Taiwan (I): Development and Psychometric Testing of SF-36 Taiwan Version. Taiwan J Public Health. 2003;22:501–511.
    1. Leese M, Schene A, Koeter M, Meijer K, Bindman J, Mazzi M, et al. SF-36 Scales, and Simple Sums of Scales, Were Reliable Quality-of-Life Summaries for Patients with Schizophrenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:588–596. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.08.004.
    1. Bond MR, Pilowsky I. Subjective Assessment of Pain and Its Relationship to the Administration of Analgesics in Patients with Advanced Cancer. J Psychosom Res. 1966;10:203–208. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(66)90064-X.
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016. Available from: .
    1. Bryer J, Speerschneider K. likert: Analysis and Visualization Likert Items. 2016. Available from:
    1. Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University; 2016.
    1. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH : Their Relations with Each Other and Two Alternative Conceptualizations of Reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–133. doi: 10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.
    1. Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG. Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the Extent to which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores. J Pers Assess. 2010;92:544–559. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.496477.
    1. Canty A, Ripley B. Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. 2016.
    1. Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
    1. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
    1. Rönkkö M. matrixpls: Matrix-based Partial Least Squares Estimation. 2016. Available from:
    1. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.
    1. Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a Fit: Impact of Number of Items and Distribution of Data on Traditional Criteria for Assessing IRT’s Unidimensionality Assumption. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:447–460. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4.
    1. Heene M, Hilbert S, Draxler C, Ziegler M, Buhner M. Masking Misfit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis by Increasing Unique Variances: A Cautionary Note on the Usefulness of Cutoff Values of Fit Indices. Psychol Methods. 2011;16:319–36. Available from:
    1. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, et al. Psychometric Evaluation and Calibration of Health-Related Quality of Life Item Banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Med Care. 2007;45:S22–S31. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.
    1. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J Acad Market Sci. 2015;43:115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
    1. Mokken RJ. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis: With applications in political research. Reprint 2011 ed. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany; 1971.
    1. Stochl J, Jones PB, Croudace TJ. Mokken Scale Analysis of Mental Health and Well-Being Questionnaire Item Responses: A Non-Parametric IRT Method in Empirical Research for Applied Health Researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:74. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-74.
    1. van der Ark LA. New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–27.
    1. van der Ark LA, Croon MA, Sijtsma K. Mokken Scale Analysis for Dichotomous Items Using Marginal Models. Psychometrika. 2008;73:183–208. doi: 10.1007/s11336-007-9034-z.
    1. Loevinger J. The Technic of Homogeneous Tests Compared with Some Aspects of Scale Analysis and Factor Analysis. Psychol Bull. 1948;45:507–529. Available from: .
    1. Straat JH. Using Scalability Coefficients and Conditional Association to Assess Monotone Homogeneity [Thesis/dissertation]. [Ridderkerk, Netherlands]: Proefschrift Tilburg University; Ridderprint; 2012. Available from:
    1. Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory. 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.
    1. Ligtvoet R, van der Ark LA, te Marvelde JM, Sijtsma K. Investigating an Invariant Item Ordering for Polytomously Scored Items. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010;70:578–595. Available from: 10.1177/0013164409355697.
    1. van der Ark LA, van der Palm DW, Sijtsma K. A Latent Class Approach to Estimating Test-Score Reliability. Appl Psych Meas. 2011;35:380–392. doi: 10.1177/0146621610392911.
    1. Hartig J, Höhler J. Multidimensional IRT Models for the Assessment of Competencies. Stud Educ Eval. 2009;35:57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.002.
    1. Jaworska N, Chupetlovska-Anastasova A. A Review of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and its Utility in Various Psychological Domains. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2009;5:1–10. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.05.1.p001.
    1. Polatin PB, Kinney RK, Gatchel RJ, Lillo E, Mayer TG. Psychiatric illness and chronic low-back pain. The mind and the spine--which goes first? Spine. 1993;18:66–71. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199301000-00011.
    1. First MB, Spitzer RL, Miriam G, Williams JB, Benjamin LS. Structured Clinical for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, (SCID-II) Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; 1997.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa