The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: Reliability and Validity Tests
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of lumbar spine patients, with a subsample followed for retest reliability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the instrument's reliability, validity, and acceptability to patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with eight diagnoses, four before surgery and four after surgery, were recruited from six orthopedic practices to test the questionnaire. METHODS: One hundred sixty-seven patients were approached through the physician's office, yielding 136 usable questionnaires (84%) and 24-hour retests on 64 patients. RESULTS: The questionnaire took about 20 minutes to administer and was acceptable to patients. The lumbar spine pain and disability and neurogenic symptoms subscales discriminated among patient groups as hypothesized and showed significantly better scores for patients independently judged successful by their physicians after surgery. Test-retest reliability and internal reliability were high (range, 0.85-0.97). Sample sizes of 20-37 would be needed to detect a 20% difference between two groups (alpha, 0.05; beta, 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire should be considered for monitoring of individual patient's progress in treatment and for clinical trials.
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
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
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
Cited by
The 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
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
Thomé, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bäzner, H., Pöckler-Schöniger, C., Wöhrle, J., & Schmiedek, P. (2005) · Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine · doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129 · Cited by 371
A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
Andersson, G. B. J., Lucente, T., Davis, A. M., Kappler, R. E., Lipton, J. A., & Leurgans, S. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199911043411903 · Cited by 332
Tuakli‐Wosornu, Y. A., Terry, A., Boachie‐Adjei, K., Harrison, J. R., Gribbin, C. K., LaSalle, E. E., Nguyen, J. T., Solomon, J. L., & Lutz, G. E. (2016) · PM&R · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.08.010 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Daltroy, L. H., Cats-Baril, W. L., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 741-748
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032116848
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 2
- 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: The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: Reliability and Validity Tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199603150-00017
- The paper
- Daltroy, L. H., Cats-Baril, W. L., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1996). The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: Reliability and Validity Tests. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199603150-00017
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.
