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
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.
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 Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
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
The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Cited by
Monticone, M., Ambrosini, E., Cazzaniga, D., Rocca, B., & Ferrante, S. (2014) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y · Cited by 277
Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire Function Domain
Asher, M. A., Lai, S. M., Glattes, R. C., Burton, D. C., Alanay, A., & Bago, J. (2006) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201331.50597.ea · Cited by 275
Self-citationA Review of Quality of Life and Psychosocial Issues in Scoliosis
Tones, M., Moss, N., & Polly, D. W. (2006) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000249555.87601.fc · Cited by 268
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.