The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement Properties of a Self-Administered Outcome Measure in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The measurement properties and validity of a newly developed patient questionnaire for the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis was tested in an ongoing prospective multicenter observational study of patients undergoing decompressive surgery in three teaching hospitals. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to develop a short, self-administered questionnaire on symptom severity, physical functional status, and patient satisfaction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The measure is intended to complement existing generic measures of spinal-related disability and health status. The questionnaire includes three scales with seven questions on symptom severity, five on physical function, and six on satisfaction. METHODS: The internal consistency of the scales was assessed with Cronbach's coefficient alpha on cross-sectional data from 193 patients before surgery. The test-retest reliability was assessed on data from a random sample of 23 patients using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The responsiveness was assessed on 130 patients with 6-month follow-up data using the standardized response mean. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.96, the internal consistency from 0.64 to 0.92, and the responsiveness from 0.96 to 1.07. The direction, statistical significance, and strength of hypothesized relationships with external criteria were as expected. CONCLUSIONS: This short self-administered spinal stenosis measure is reproducible, internally consistent, valid, and highly responsive. It can be used to complement generic instruments in outcome assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
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
Cited by
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
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
Predictors of Surgical Outcome in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Katz, J. N., Stucki, G., Lipson, S. J., Fossel, A. H., Grobler, L. J., & Weinstein, J. N. (1999) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199911010-00010 · Cited by 351
Self-citationKatz, J. N., Lipson, S. J., Lew, R. A., Grobler, L. J., Weinstein, J. N., Brick, G. W., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1997) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199705150-00012 · Cited by 300
Self-citationIversen, M. D., Daltroy, L. H., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (1998) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(97)00109-2 · Cited by 231
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Liang, M. H., Lipson, S. J., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 796-803
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2329362551
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.60
- 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: Measurement Properties of a Self-Administered Outcome Measure in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004
- The paper
- Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Liang, M. H., Lipson, S. J., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Measurement Properties of a Self-Administered Outcome Measure in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004
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.