Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric Characteristics and Clinical Usefulness of Physical Performance Tests in Patients With Low Back Pain

Simmonds, Maureen J., Olson, Sharon L., Jones, Stanley, Hussein, Tarek, Lee, C. Ellen, Novy, Diane, Radwan, Hamdy·1998·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: The psychometric properties and clinical use of a battery of physical performance measures were tested on 44 patients with low back pain and 48 healthy, pain-free control subjects. OBJECTIVES: Reliability, validity, and clinical use of nine physical performance measures were evaluated. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although physical performance measures have potential use in evaluation, treatment planning, and determination of treatment outcome, there is sparse systematic investigation of their reliability, validity, and clinical use. METHODS: Forty-four subjects with low back pain and 48 healthy pain-free subjects participated. The following physical performance measures were tested: distance walked in 5 minutes; 50-foot walk at fastest speed; 50-foot walk at preferred speed; 5 repetitions of a sit-to-stand task; 10 repetitions of a repeated trunk flexion task; timed up-and-go task; unloaded forward reach task; loaded forward reach task; and Sorensen fatigue test. Subjects were assessed twice on 2 days. RESULTS: All measures had excellent intertester reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]1,1 > 0.95). Test-retest (within session) reliability was adequate for all measures (ICC1,1 > 0.83) except repeated trunk flexion (ICC1,1 > 0.45) in the low back pain group. Test-retest (day-to-day) reliability ranged between 0.59 and 0.88 in the low back pain group and between 0.46 and 0.76 in the control group. Day-to-day reliability improved when the averages of two trials of repeated trunk flexion and sit-to-stand were used (0.76-0.91 low back pain group and 0.62-0.89 control group). Results of a multivariate analysis of variance showed a significant effect of group (F10,65 = 3.52, P = 0.001). Results of univariate analyses showed significant group differences on all measures except the 50-foot walk at preferred speed and unloaded forward reach. Self-report of disability was moderately correlated with the performance tasks (r = 0.400 to -0.603). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide support for the use of these physical performance measures as a complement to patient self-report.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-199811150-00011

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Simmonds, M. J., Olson, S. L., Jones, S., Hussein, T., Lee, C. E., Novy, D., & Radwan, H.
Venue
Spine
Published
1998-11
Volume
23
Issue
22
Pages
2412-2421
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091473265
Cited by
368
References
2
FWCI
3.20
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: Psychometric Characteristics and Clinical Usefulness of Physical Performance Tests in Patients With Low Back Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199811150-00011
The paper
Simmonds, M. J., Olson, S. L., Jones, S., Hussein, T., Lee, C. E., Novy, D., & Radwan, H. (1998). Psychometric Characteristics and Clinical Usefulness of Physical Performance Tests in Patients With Low Back Pain. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199811150-00011

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.