Reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index in older people with low back pain: preliminary report

The effect of low back and neck pain on posture, burnout, and quality of life in formal caregivers of children with disabilities and the elderly

BACKGROUND

Caregiving, which is often described as a stressful job due to the patience and dedication it requires, affects the physical and mental health of the employees of the profession due to various factors.

AIMS

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of lower back and neck pain on posture, burnout level, and quality of life of the formal caregivers of children with disability and the elderly.

METHODS

The study included 64 formal caregivers of children with disability and the elderly. The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index, the Neck Disability Index, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and the Short Form-36 were used to evaluate low back pain, neck pain, burnout levels, and quality of life, respectively. Participants' spinal posture values were measured with the Spinal Mouse device.

RESULTS

When the groups were combined and examined, it was found that neck pain caused changes in the spinal posture (p < 0.05) and that low back pain did not affect spinal posture (p > 0.05). Also, low back and neck pain had an increasing effect on emotional burnout and desensitization and a decreasing effect on the quality of life (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, it was observed that low back and neck pain experience has negative effects on individuals' posture, burnout levels, and quality of life.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Clinimetric Testing of Functional Rating Index (FRI) Outcome Measure into the Arabic Language

Background

The Functional Rating Index (FRI) is a self-report scale widely used to determine the level of disability in low back pain (LBP) populations.

Objectives

This study was aimed at conducting the cross-cultural adaptation of the FRI-Arabic version (FRI-Ar) and testing the clinometric properties of FRI-Ar.

Methods

The cross-cultural adaptation process was used to develop the FRI-Ar. This study included acute and subacute LBP patients. Each patient was asked to complete the questionnaires at three time points: baseline, 24-hour follow-up, and two-week follow-up. The questionnaires used were FRI-Ar, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Global Perceived Effect Scale (GPE), and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Statistical analysis was carried out to measure the instrument's reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Results

The FRI was cross-culturally adapted to the Arabic language, and the adapted version was validated. Two hundred patients completed the questionnaires at the baseline; however, 120 patients completed the questionnaires at 24-hour and two-week follow-up. Cronbach's alpha, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC_2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC_95%) for the FRI-Ar were observed as 0.85, 0.85, 1.17 (2.9%), and 3.24, respectively. The FRI-Ar showed a moderate positive correlation only with the RMDQ, ODI, and NPRS (p < 0.05). Also, it showed the responsiveness with a small effect size (ES = 0.29) and standardized response mean (SRM = 0.44).

Conclusion

The FRI-Ar was developed, and it showed good reliability and validity. However, it revealed the responsiveness with the small change. It can evaluate both pain and functional limitations in acute and subacute LBP patients. Before using it in the Arabic population with acute and subacute LBP, it is recommended to conduct further research to test internal and external responsiveness using an external criterion with a more extended follow-up period and suitable interventions.

The Spanish Version of the Functional Rating Index in Patients With Low Back Pain: Preliminary Results of the Validation Study

Objective

To assess the reliability, validity, and the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Functional Rating Index (Sp-FRI) in a preliminary cohort of patients with low back pain (LBP).

Design

Prospective observational multicenter study.

Setting

Outpatient physical therapy clinics and units from public and private settings.

Participants

Patients with LBP (N=22; 52.5±12.5y) entered the study.

Interventions

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following international guidelines through a 5-step procedure.

Main Outcome Measures

The Sp-FRI was administered along with the Spanish version of Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Sp-RMDQ) and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) index. Preliminary testing included readability, comprehensibility, ceiling and floor effects, reliability, and validity. Statistical analysis was based on the Fernandez-Huerta index, and the calculation of Cronbach alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearmanś correlation coefficient, respectively. All patients completed the Sp-FRI again after 1-2 days to assess its test-retest reliability.

Results

None of the participants requested clarification of any of the items at the time of completion. The test-retest reliability of the FRI score was substantial (ICC 0.77). Cronbach alpha was 0.859. Spearman correlation coefficient between Sp-FRI and Sp-RMDQ was 0.66; P<.0001, and between Sp-FRI and NPRS was 0.66; P<.0001. No ceiling or floor effects were detected.

Conclusions

In light of these preliminary data, the Sp-FRI appears to be linguistically accurate and has been adapted to the Spanish-speaking population. It demonstrated reliability and validity and is suitable for clinical and research use among Spanish patients with LBP, with an acceptable degree of internal consistency and concurrent validity.

Measurement Properties of the Functional Rating Index: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the measurement properties of the Functional Rating Index (FRI) and determine whether its measurement properties are comparable with other region-specific questionnaires.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In addition to low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP), multiregion spinal pain (SP) is a common problem with a considerable prevalence in the general population. The FRI was built to assess physical functioning in patients with SP. However, a systematic review assessing evidence of its measurement properties in separated populations and a comparison with other questionnaires regarding each measurement property is lacking.

METHODS

Articles concerning the FRI's measurement properties or head-to-head comparison with other questionnaires on measurement properties were obtained from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles, extracted data, and conducted the methodological quality assessment. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies evaluating the FRI's measurement properties, including seven that carried out head-to-head comparisons in at least one measurement property with other questionnaires, were included in the current review. Our findings show strong positive evidence for structural validity and internal consistency in patients with SP and LBP. Evidence for most of the FRI's measurement properties is limited, conflicting, or even unknown. The current evidence shows that the FRI is comparable with both the Oswestry Disability Index and the Neck Disability Index in responsiveness. However, relevant information about the majority of the other measurement properties is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Our finding suggests that clinicians and researchers should use the FRI with caution until there are more studies with high methodological quality that support the view that it is positive in all measurement properties, especially in regard to patients with multiregion SP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Thai version of the Functional Rating Index for patients with back and neck pain: Part II responsiveness and head-to-head comparisons

OBJECTIVES

To examine responsiveness and estimate minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Thai version of Functional Rating Index (Thai FRI) and examine head-to-head comparisons of the Thai FRI and other questionnaires.

METHODS

This study related to validation of a questionnaire and head-to-head comparisons. Patients with low back pain (LBP) completed the Thai FRI, Roland-Morris (RM), modified Oswestry, and multilevel RM disability questionnaires. Patients with neck pain (NP) completed the Thai FRI and Neck Disability Index at the first visit and 2-week follow-up. Patients and therapists rated Global Perceived Effect Scales (GPES). Effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), correlations between the GPES with changes in questionnaire scores, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. The MCID was also estimated.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients with LBP and 52 patients with NP completed the Thai FRI. ES = 1.34 for LBP; 1.28 for NP, SRM = 1.32 for LBP; 1.20 for NP, correlation = 0.49 for LBP; 0.38 for NP, AUC = 0.83 for both groups. MCID = 11.5 for LBP; 12.5 FRI points for NP.

CONCLUSION

The Thai FRI demonstrated responsiveness with large ES. Its MCID ranged from 11.5 to 12.5 FRI points. The Thai FRI had comparable responsiveness to other questionnaires and was appropriate for use in the patients with back and/or neck pain.

A Comparison of Back Pain Functional Scale With Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Short Form 36-Health Survey

STUDY DESIGN

A comparison study of Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) with Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 36-Health Survey (SF-36).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the correlation of BPFS with RMQ, ODI, and SF-36.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The primary goal in the treatment of patients with low back pain is to improve the patients' levels of activities and participation. Many questionnaires focusing on function have been developed in patients with low back pain. BPFS is one of these questionnaires. No studies have investigated the correlation of BPFS with ODI and SF-36.

METHODS

This study was conducted with 120 patients receiving outpatient and inpatient treatment in physiotherapy and rehabilitation units of a state hospital. BPFS, RMQ, ODI, and SF-36 questionnaires were used to assess the disability in low back pain. Spearman and Pearson Correlation were used to compare the data obtained in the study.

RESULTS

There was a good correlation among the 5 functional outcome measures (correlation r = -0.693 for BPFS/RMQ, r = -0.794 for BPFS/ODI, r = 0.697 for BPFS/SF-36 Physical function and r = 0.540 for BPFS/SF-36 Pain).

CONCLUSION

BPFS demonstrated good correlation with RMQ, ODI, SF-36 physical function, and SF-36 pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Self-report pain assessment tools for cognitively intact older adults: Integrative review

BACKGROUND

Pain is common in older adults, but it is often underreported or undertreated partly because many consider pain to be a normal consequence of ageing. Among the plethora of available self-report pain assessment tools, there is no synthetised evidence which tools are indicated for use among cognitively intact older adults.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To understand documented self-report pain assessment tools that have been used among cognitively intact older adults, and to describe their characteristics including overall performance as well as studies demonstrating their use.

METHODS

A systematic search of the indexed databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus) was conducted to identify documented self-report pain assessment tools through peer-reviewed papers, including citations from January 1990 to December 2015. Thirty-five percentage of abstracts were independently evaluated by two raters according to specific criteria.

RESULTS

Among identified tools, the Iowa Pain Thermometer, the 6-point Verbal Descriptor Scale, the Numeric Rating Scale, the short form Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM) may be suitable tools for self-reported pain by cognitively intact older adults based on the statement of the literature. Only two self-report tools (the GPM and the Geriatric Painful Events Inventory) were designed specifically for older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are needed to evaluate pain measures' psychometric performance across different settings, racial/ethnic groups and disease categories. Since 80% of older adults have at least one chronic disease, multidimensional tools such as the GPM may need to be used more often for accurate self-report of pain.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Examining the psychometric properties of comprehensive self-report pain assessment tools informs recommendations for the selection of tools to be used in clinical practice.

The validity and reliability of the functional rating index for evaluating low back pain in athletes

The purpose of the present study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index (FRI) for athletes with low back pain (LBP). In this cross-sectional and prospective cohort study, the validated Persian FRI (PFRI) was tested in 100 athletes with LBP and 50 healthy athletes. From the athletes with LBP, data were recollected among 50 athletes with a 7-day interval to examine test-retest reliability. The content validity was excellent, and the athletes with LBP responded to all items with no floor or ceiling effects. The discriminative validity was supported by a statistically significant difference in PFRI total scores between the athletes with LBP and healthy athletes. The concurrent criterion validity was good (rho = 0.72). The construct, convergent validity was good (r = 0.83). The internal consistency reliability estimate was high (Cronbach's α = 0.90). Factor analysis demonstrated a single-factor structure with an explained variance of 52.22%. The test-retest reliability was excellent, indicated by an ICC(agreement) of 0.97, and the agreement observed in the Bland and Altman plot demonstrated no systematic bias. It is concluded that the PFRI has excellent psychometric properties for assessing athletes with LBP.

Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for people with pain in any spine region. A systematic review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This systematic review investigates the measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires which evaluate disability associated with pain in any area of the spine.

METHOD

PRO questionnaires for people with pain in any spinal region were identified from existing systematic reviews and recent studies. Databases were searched for studies which evaluated the measurement properties of the included questionnaires to August 2015. Data synthesis used a levels of evidence approach which considered study methodological quality.

RESULTS

The Extended Aberdeen Back Pain Scale (EA), Functional Rating Index (FRI) and Spine Functional Index (SFI) were identified as eligible for this review. The FRI was evaluated in 15 studies, with positive results for internal consistency, structural validity, hypothesis testing and responsiveness, negative results for measurement error and conflicting results for reliability. The SFI was evaluated in 3 studies with positive results for internal consistency, reliability, content validity, and structural validity. Conflicting results were found for hypothesis testing. The EA was evaluated in 3 studies which found negative results for internal consistency and structural validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The FRI is provisionally recommended for the assessment of disability in people with multi-area spinal pain. This conclusion is based on studies of mainly fair methodological quality.

Validation of the simplified chinese version of the functional rating index for patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing of the functional rating index (FRI).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability and validity of the adapted simplified Chinese FRI (SC-FRI) for patients with low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The FRI is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the perception of function and pain for patients with LBP. However, there is no culturally adapted, reliable, and validated FRI for use in mainland China.

METHODS

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following international guidelines. The SC-FRI was administered to 115 patients with LBP along with the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index, 36-item short form health survey, and the visual analogue scale. Psychometric testing included internal consistency, test-test reliability, concurrent criterion validity, and construct validity.

RESULTS

A high completion rate of 96% and no floor or ceiling effects were noted for the SC-FRI. The internal consistency was good (i.e., Cronbach α = 0.897 for the overall SC-FRI; range, 0.851-0.890, if an item was deleted). Test-retest reliability was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.948 (95% confidence interval, 0.917-0.968). Concurrent criterion validity assessment demonstrated that the SC-FRI significantly correlated with the visual analogue scale (r = 0.852, P < 0.0001) and the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index (r = 0.958, P < 0.0001). Construct validity was confirmed by the significant Pearson correlation between the SC-FRI and physical functioning (r = -0.802, P < 0.0001), Bodily Pain (r = -0.698, P < 0.0001), social functioning (r = -0.573, P < 0.0001), role-physical (r = -0.503, P < 0.0001), and general health (r = -0.502, P < 0.0001) domains of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.

CONCLUSION

The SC-FRI showed excellent reliability and validity in the evaluation of pain and the functional health status of Chinese-speaking patients with LBP. It is simple and easy to use and can be recommended in clinical and research practice in mainland China.

The functional rating index: reliability and validity of the Persian language version in patients with neck pain

STUDY DESIGN

Psychometric testing of the Persian Functional Rating Index (PFRI).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reliability and validity of the PFRI in Persian-speaking subjects with neck pain (NP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The Functional Rating Index is a self-report questionnaire that can be used for patients with back pain or NP. The PFRI has been recently validated in patients with low back pain, whereas it is not validated in patients with NP.

METHODS

One hundred patients with NP, mean age of 42 years, participated in the study; 50 patients agreed to be tested on 2 occasions during a 7-day interval for the reliability phase of the study. A visual analogue scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale were also completed to assess validity. Fifty healthy subjects completed the PFRI for discriminative validity.

RESULTS

Floor and ceiling effects were not observed. Independent t test showed a statistically significant difference in PFRI total scores between patients and healthy subjects supporting the discriminative validity of the PFRI (P < 0.001). PFRI and visual analogue scale demonstrated concurrent criterion validity, with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.75 for test and 0.70 for retest. Construct validity was supported by a significant Pearson correlation between the PFRI and the Neck Disability Index (r = 0.72, P < 0.0001) and between the PFRI and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (r = 0.63, P < 0.0001). Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor solution, which jointly accounted for 64.75% of the total variance. Additional factor analysis suggested 8-item PFRI as a unidimensional functional instrument for patients with NP. Internal consistency for the PFRI was high. (Cronbach α coefficients were 0.88 for test, 0.89 for retest, and 0.89 for 8-item PFRI.) Reproducibility assessed by test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC](agreement) of 0.96, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The PFRI is valid and reliable for use in a Persian-speaking population with NP.

The functional rating index: reliability and validity of the Persian language version in patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Crosscultural adaptation and psychometric measurements of the Functional Rating Index (FRI).

OBJECTIVE

To develop and investigate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the FRI when applied to patients with low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The FRI is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess patient's perception of function and pain. Despite the use of this outcome measure in clinical trials in Iran, it was not translated and culturally adapted.

METHODS

The FRI was translated into Persian language and crossculturally adapted. The Persian FRI was administered to 100 patients with LBP (male patients/female patients = 22/78). A numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale were also recorded. The test-retest reliability (time interval = 7 days) was assessed in 50 patients.

RESULTS

There were no missing responses and floor or ceiling effects. The examination of discriminative validity showed that the questionnaire discriminated clearly between patients and healthy participants (P < 0.001). The concurrent criterion validity was confirmed by the Spearman rank correlation between the Persian FRI and the numerical rating scale (0.73, P < 0.0001 for test; and 0.77 for retest, P < 0.0001). Evidence for construct validity was found with a significant Pearson correlation between the FRI and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.61; P < 0.0001), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.75; P < 0.0001), or Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (r = 0.76; P < 0.0001). Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach α) for the Persian FRI were high, with 0.89 for test and 0.92 for retest. The test-retest reliability for the total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient (agreement) (ICCagreement) of 0.81 (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of the FRI seems to have an excellent reliability and validity when applied to patients with LBP.

Psychometric characteristics of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Functional Rating Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

STUDY DESIGN

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of self-report outcome measurements.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to adapt the Functional Rating Index (FRI) to Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the psychometric properties of this new questionnaire and the Brazilian-Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Self-report measures are commonly used in clinical practice and in research studies. Most existing questionnaires were developed in English and there is only 1 Brazilian-Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation of a spine outcome measure.

METHODS

The FRI was translated and adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese according to the Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self report measures. The Brazilian-Portuguese FRI and RMDQ were tested for internal consistency, reliability, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, and responsiveness in 140 low back pain (LBP) patients.

RESULTS

A very high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) and reliability [ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.97)] was shown for both instruments. The FRI and RMDQ were highly correlated (r = 0.80), while both the FRI and RMDQ were moderately correlated with pain at baseline (r = 0.67 and 0.55, respectively). No ceiling or floor effects were detected; however, the responsiveness of both questionnaires was quite small (RMDQ ES = 0.10 [84% confidence interval, 0.04-0.16] and FRI ES = 0.18 [84% confidence interval, 0.11-0.24]).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the FRI and RMDQ are reliable and valid instruments for the measurement of disability in Brazilian-Portuguese-speaking patients with LBP presenting for physiotherapy treatment. Both instruments are suitable for use in clinical practice and research studies.

Outils de mesure des paramètres fonctionnels dans la lombalgie

OBJECTIVES

To identify and compare low back pain functional assessment tools and to determine their characteristics and the selection criteria for their use.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We systematically searched Medline with the key words: low back pain, scale validity, questionnaire, assessment, outcome, and functional evaluation and with some data from the "Guide des Outils de Mesure et d'Evaluation en Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation", which allowed us to complete the search on specific tools including the Roland Disability Questionnaire, Dallas Pain Questionnaire, Quebec Back Pain Questionnaire, and Oswestry Back Pain Questionnaire. We restricted our analysis to studies about the psychometric properties of functional tools.

RESULTS

We identified 19 scales or questionnaires, 9 specifically for low back pain and with a concept of functional incapacity. Four tools are recognised as having good psychometric properties and are widely used with linguistic adaptations in different countries. We also identified 10 generic tools proposed to assess outcome in low back pain, which are more conceptually linked to perceived health status, quality of life, and pain assessment.

CONCLUSION

A "gold standard" to evaluate disability in low back pain does not exist, but only 4 tools (the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, Roland Disability Questionnaire, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire) demonstrated strong qualities (content and construct validity, feasibility, linguistic adaptation and international use).

Psychometric properties of the functional rating index in patients with low back pain

MAIN PROBLEM

The purpose of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the functional rating index (FRI), establish the instrument's minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and compare its psychometric properties with the Oswestry questionnaire.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of patients with low back pain (LBP) undergoing physical therapy. One thirty one patients with a primary complaint of LBP participating in a clinical trial were assessed at baseline and at a 1- and 4-week follow-up. Test-re-test reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient, and validity was examined by determining the association between the FRI and Oswestry, a concurrent measure of disability. Responsiveness was examined by calculating the standard error of the measure, minimum detectable change, area under a receiver operating characteristic curve, and minimum clinically important difference. Changes in clinical status at each follow-up period were compared to the average of the patient and therapist's perceived improvement using the 15-point global rating of change scale.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability of the FRI was moderate, with an intraclass correlation coefficient equal to 0.63 (0.35, 0.80). Validity of the FRI was supported by a moderate correlation between the FRI and Oswestry (r=0.67, P<0.001). Area under the curve for the FRI was 0.93 (0.89, 0.98), and the minimum clinically important difference was approximately nine points.

CONCLUSIONS

The FRI is less reliable than the Oswestry but appears to have comparable validity and responsiveness. Before the FRI can be recommended for widespread use in patients with neck and low back pain, it should be further tested in patients with neck pain.