The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of a Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose. The quality of a disability scale should dictate when it is used. The purposes of this study were to examine the validity of a global rating of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status and to compare the measurement properties of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE). Subjects. Sixty-seven patients with acute, work-related low back pain referred for physical therapy participated in the study. Methods. The 2 scales were administered initially and after 4 weeks of physical therapy. The Physical Impairment Index, a measure of physical impairment due to low back pain, was measured initially and after 2 and 4 weeks. A global rating of change survey instrument was completed by each subject after 4 weeks. Results. An interaction existed between patients defined as improved or stable based on the global rating using a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures on the impairment index. The modified OSW showed higher levels of test-retest reliability and responsiveness compared with the QUE. The minimum clinically important difference, defined as the amount of change that best distinguishes between patients who have improved and those remaining stable, was approximately 6 points for the modified OSW and approximately 15 points for the QUE. Conclusion and Discussion. The construct validity of the global rating of change was supported by the stability of the Physical Impairment Index across the study period in patients defined as stable by the global rating and by the decrease in physical impairment across the study period in patients defined as improved by the global rating. The modified OSW demonstrated superior measurement properties compared with the QUE.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Comparing correlated correlation coefficients
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172 · Cited by 2,472
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire
Fairbank, J. C. T., Couper, J., Davies, J. B., & O'Brien, J. P. (2020) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t04205-000 · Cited by 2,033
Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & Revenstorf, D. (1984) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(84)80002-7 · Cited by 1,294
Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Research: A Proposal for Standardized Use
Deyo, R. A., Battie, M., Beurskens, A. J. H. M., Bombardier, C., Croft, P., Koes, B., Malmivaara, A., Roland, M., Von Korff, M., & Waddell, G. (1998) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018 · Cited by 1,229
Redelmeier, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., Goldstein, R. S., & Guyatt, G. H. (1997) · American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.155.4.9105067 · Cited by 1,029
Likelihood ratios with confidence: Sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies
Simel, D. L., Samsa, G. P., & Matchar, D. B. (1991) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90128-v · Cited by 932
Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials
Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Walter, S. D., Griffith, L. E., & Goldstein, R. S. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690 · Cited by 516
The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Conceptualization and development
Kopec, J. A., Esdaile, J. M., Abrahamowicz, M., Abenhaim, L., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Lamping, D. L., & Williams, J. I. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(96)00526-4 · Cited by 242
Cited by
Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163 · Cited by 1,458
Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 · Cited by 840
Hicks, G. E., Fritz, J. M., Delitto, A., & McGill, S. M. (2005) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033 · Cited by 621
Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015 · Cited by 600
Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain
Chiarotto, A., Boers, M., Deyo, R. A., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T. P., Costa, L. O. P., Foster, N. E., Grotle, M., Koes, B. W., Kovacs, F. M., et al. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001117 · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Fritz, J. M., & Irrgang, J. J.
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-02-01
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 776-788
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- OpenAlex
- W2133293443
- Cited by
- 1,045
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 7.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A Comparison of a Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/81.2.776
- The paper
- Fritz, J. M., & Irrgang, J. J. (2001). A Comparison of a Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/81.2.776
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.
