The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining the Minimum Level of Detectable Change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ) is a self-administered disability measure in which greater levels of disability are reflected by higher numbers on a 24-point scale. The RMQ has been shown to yield reliable measurements, which are valid for inferring the level of disability, and to be sensitive to change over time for groups of patients with low back pain. Little is known about the usefulness of this instrument in aiding decision making regarding individual patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimum level of detectable change when the RMQ is applied to individual patients. SUBJECTS: The study sample consisted of 60 outpatients with low back pain. METHODS: The RMQ was administered at the subjects' initial visit and again 4 to 6 weeks later. Conditional standard errors of measurement (CSEMs) were computed for initial and follow-up RMQ scores, and these values were used to estimate the minimum level of detectable change. Results. Minimum levels of detectable change at the 90% confidence level varied from 4 to 5 RMQ points. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The magnitude of CSEMs is sufficiently small to detect change in patients with initial scores in the central portion of the scale (4-20 RMQ points); however, the magnitude is too large to detect improvement in patients with scores of less than 4 and deterioration in patients who have scores greater than 20.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Study of the Natural History of Back Pain: Part I
ROLAND, M., & MORRIS, R. (1983) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 · Cited by 3,395
A New Approach to the Measurement of Quality of Life: The Patient-Generated Index
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199411000-00004 · Cited by 527
Grönblad, M., Hupli, M., Wennerstrand, P., Järvinen, E., Lukinmaa, A., Kouri, J.-P., & Karaharju, E. O. (1993) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-199309000-00006 · Cited by 390
Cited by
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Kerns, R. D., Ader, D. N., et al. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 · Cited by 3,471
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Deyo, R. A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P., Von Korff, M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 · Cited by 2,009
Self-citationThe Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire
Roland, M., & Fairbank, J. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006 · Cited by 1,911
Metadata
- Authors
- Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J., Solomon, P., Finch, E., Gill, C., & Moreland, J.
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-04-01
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-365
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- OpenAlex
- W2100464618
- Cited by
- 459
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Defining the Minimum Level of Detectable Change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/76.4.359
- The paper
- Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J., Solomon, P., Finch, E., Gill, C., & Moreland, J. (1996). Defining the Minimum Level of Detectable Change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/76.4.359
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.