Cited by 390Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Intel-correlation and Test-Retest Reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and Their Correlation with Pain Intensity in Low Back Pain Patients

Grönblad, Mats, Hupli, Markku, Wennerstrand, Pekka, Järvinen, Erkki, Lukinmaa, Asko, Kouri, Jukka-Pekka, Karaharju, Erkki O.·1993·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the intercorrelation between subjective disability, as assessed with the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity ratings. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Questionnaires were administered to 94 patients with chronic low back pain with or without radiation into the legs of at least 3 months' duration. SETTING: Tertiary care center. RESULTS: High correlations were noted between the ODQ and PDI (r = 0.83) and PDI factor 1 (r = 0.84), a subscale of the PDI. Lower correlations were noted between pain intensity (VAS) scores and the ODQ (r = 0.62) and the PDI (r = 0.69). A weaker correlation (r = 0.41) was noted between the ODQ and PDI factor 2. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for test-retest reliability in 20 patients (time interval 1 week) were for the ODQ ICC = 0.83, PDI ICC = 0.91, PDI percentage score ICC = 0.91, PDI factor 1 ICC = 0.87, and PDI factor 2 ICC = 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that either the PDI or the percentage score PDI and also the even shorter-to-administer PDI factor 1 may be useful and reliable tests for the assessment of subjective disability in low back pain patients. As noted by the moderate intercorrelations with pain intensity scores, both the PDI and the ODQ address a broader concept of disability than that directly related to pain intensity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00002508-199309000-00006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grönblad, M., Hupli, M., Wennerstrand, P., Järvinen, E., Lukinmaa, A., Kouri, J.-P., & Karaharju, E. O.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
1993-09
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
189-195
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040987404
Cited by
390
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
Pain Disability Index, low back pain, disability assessment, pain intensity, test-retest reliability, visual analogue scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Low Back Pain

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