Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 614

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire for Idiopathic Scoliosis

Asher, Marc, Min Lai, Sue, Burton, Doug, Manna, Barbara·2003·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Outcome study to determine response distribution, internal consistency, reproducibility, and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: Further refinement of an HRQL questionnaire specific for idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous experience with the original and modified SRS HRQL questionnaires suggested a need for further refinement and more complete validation. METHODS: The SRS-22 and Short Form 36 (SF-36) HRQL questionnaires were mailed to 83 previously surveyed postoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients. RESULTS: Fifty-eight (70%) patients returned the first set of questionnaires. Their average age at surgery was 14.6 years, and their average follow-up interval since surgery was 10.8 years. Fifty-one (88%) of the 58 returned the second set of questionnaires an average of 28 days later. The psychometric attributes of the instruments were comparable: score distribution, SRS-22 56.9% ceiling and 1.7% floor, SF-36 79.3% ceiling and 1.7% floor; internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), SRS-22 0.92 to 0.75, SF-36 0.91 to 0.36; and reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient), SRS-22 0.96 to 0.85, SF-36 0.92 to 0.61. Concurrent validity, determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients between SRS-22 and SF-36 domains, was 0.70 or greater ( < 0.0001) for 17 relevant comparisons. CONCLUSION: The SRS-22 HRQL questionnaire is reliable with internal consistency and reproducibility comparable to SF-36. In addition, it demonstrated concurrent validity when compared to SF-36. It is shorter and more focused on the health issues related to idiopathic scoliosis than SF-36.

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 · 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 614

Metadata

Authors
Asher, M., Min Lai, S., Burton, D., & Manna, B.
Venue
Spine
Published
2003-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
63-69
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059163466
Cited by
614
References
3
FWCI
7.83
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 Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire for Idiopathic Scoliosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015
The paper
Asher, M., Min Lai, S., Burton, D., & Manna, B. (2003). The Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire for Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015

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.