The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Measurement Properties
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale is a 20-item self-administered instrument designed to assess the level of functional disability in individuals with back pain. The scale was administered as part of a larger questionnaire to a group of 242 back pain patients. Follow-up data were obtained after several days and after 2 to 6 months. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether the Quebec scale is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of disability in back pain, and to compare it with other disability scales. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A number of functional disability scales for back pain are being used, but their conceptual validity is uncertain. Unlike most published instruments, the Quebec scale was constructed using a conceptual approach to disability assessment and empirical methods of item development, analysis, and selection. METHODS: The authors calculated test-retest and internal consistency coefficients, evaluated construct validity of the scale, and tested its responsiveness against a global index of change. Direct comparisons with the Roland, Oswestry, and SF-36 scales were carried out. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was 0.92, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.96. The scale correlated as expected with other measures of disability, pain, medical history, and utilization variables, work-related variables, and socio-demographic characteristics. Significant changes in disability over time, and differences in change scores between patients that were expected to differ in the direction of change, were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Quebec scale can be recommended as an outcome measure in clinical trials, and for monitoring the progress of individual patients participating in treatment or rehabilitation programs.
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
Cited by
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
Roelofs, J., Goubert, L., Peters, M. L., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Crombez, G. (2004) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.11.016 · Cited by 472
Leeuw, M., Goossens, M. E. J. B., van Breukelen, G. J. P., de Jong, J. R., Heuts, P. H. T. G., Smeets, R. J. E. M., Köke, A. J. A., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2008) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.12.009 · Cited by 393
van der Roer, N., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Bekkering, G. E., van Tulder, M. W., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2006) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47 · Cited by 344
Roelofs, J., Sluiter, J. K., Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., Goossens, M., Thibault, P., Boersma, K., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2007) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.01.008 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- Kopec, J. A., Esdaile, J. M., Abrahamowicz, M., Abenhaim, L., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Lamping, D. L., & Williams, J. I.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 341-352
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128679842
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.62
- 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: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Measurement Properties. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016
- The paper
- Kopec, J. A., Esdaile, J. M., Abrahamowicz, M., Abenhaim, L., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Lamping, D. L., & Williams, J. I. (1995). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Measurement Properties. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016
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.