
==== Front
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
1471-2474
BioMed Central London

7352
10.1186/s12891-024-07352-x
Research
Developing a shortened spine functional index (SFI-10) for patients with sub-acute/chronic spinal disorders: a cross-sectional study
Gabel Charles Philip 1
Cuesta-Vargas Antonio 2
Dibai-Filho Almir Vieira 3
Mokhtarinia Hamid Reza hrmokhtarinia@yahoo.com
hr.mokhtarinia@uswr.ac.ir

4
Melloh Markus 5
Bejer Agnieszka 67
1 Access Physiotherapy, PO Box 760, Coolum Beach, Queensland, 4573 Australia
2 https://ror.org/036b2ww28 grid.10215.37 0000 0001 2298 7828 Department of Psychiatry and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Malaga University, Malaga, Spain
3 https://ror.org/043fhe951 grid.411204.2 0000 0001 2165 7632 Federal University of Maranhao, Sao Luis, Maranhao Brazil
4 https://ror.org/05jme6y84 grid.472458.8 0000 0004 0612 774X Department of Ergonomics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 https://ror.org/03pnv4752 grid.1024.7 0000 0000 8915 0953 Queensland University of Technology, School of Public Health and Social Work, Brisbane, Australia
6 https://ror.org/03pfsnq21 grid.13856.39 0000 0001 2154 3176 Institute of Health Sciences, Medical College, Rzeszow University, Rzeszow, Poland
7 The Holy Family Specialist Hospital, Rudna Mała 600, 36-060 Głogów Małopolski, Poland
26 3 2024
26 3 2024
2024
25 2364 12 2023
12 3 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Background

Brief whole-spine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide regional solutions and future directions for quantifying functional status, evidence, and effective interventions. The whole-spine regional Spine Functional Index (SFI-25) is used internationally in clinical and scientific contexts to assess general sub-acute/chronic spine populations. However, to improve structural validity and practicality a shortened version is recommended. This study developed a shortened-SFI from the determined optimal number of item questions that: correlated with criteria PROMs being highly with whole-spine, moderately with regional-spine, condition-specific and patient-specific, and moderately-low with general-health and pain; retained one-dimensional structural validity and high internal consistency; and improved practicality to reduce administrative burden.

Methods

A cross-sectional study (n = 505, age = 18-87 yrs., average = 40.3 ± 10.1 yrs) of sub-acute/chronic spine physiotherapy outpatients from an international sample of convenience. Three shortened versions of the original SFI-25 were developed using 1) qualitative ‘content-retention’ methodology, 2) quantitative ‘factorial’ methodology, and 3) quantitative ‘Rasch’ methodology, with a fourth ‘random’ version produced as a comparative control. The clinimetric properties were established for structural validity with exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factorial analysis, and Rasch analysis. Criterion validity used the: whole-spine SFI-25 and Functional Rating Index (FRI); regional-spine Neck Disability Index (NDI), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), condition-specific Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (WDQ); and patient-specific functional scale (PSFS); and determined floor/ceiling effect. A post-hoc pooled international sub-acute/chronic spine sample (n = 1433, age = 18-91 yrs., average = 42.0 ± 15.7 yrs) clarified the findings and employed the general-health EuroQuol-Index (EQ-5D), and 11-point Pain Numerical Rating Scale (P-NRS) criteria.

Results

A 10-item SFI retained structural validity with optimal practicality requiring no computational aid. The SFI-10 concept-retention-version demonstrated preferred criterion validity with whole-spine criteria (SFI-25 = 0.967, FRI = 0.810) and exceeded cut-off minimums with regional-spine, condition-specific, and patient-specific measures. An unequivocal one-dimensional structure was determined. Internal consistency was satisfactory (α = 0.80) with no floor/ceiling effect. Post-hoc analysis of the international sample confirmed these findings.

Conclusion

The SFI-10 qualitative concept-retention version was preferred to quantitative factorial and Rasch versions, demonstrated structural and criterion validity, and preferred correlation with criteria measures. Further longitudinal research is required for reliability, error, and responsiveness, plus an examination of the practical characteristics of readability and administrative burden.

Keywords

Spine
Musculoskeletal
Assessment
Patient-reported outcome measure
Functional limitation
Clinometric
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Functional status measurement is frequently determined with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as they provide optimal practicality, statistical coherence, and structural-validity [1]. For patients with spine disorders, there has been a progressive shift toward ‘whole-spine’ PROMs that measure status as a continuous functional kinetic-chain [2]. These have included static-PROMs, the Extended Aberdeen Spine Pain Scale (EASPS) [3], Functional Rating Index (FRI) [4], Spine Functional Index (SFI-25) [5], and the Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) assessed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) for Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) [6, 7]. This whole-spine approach has high clinical relevance as a single, practical, psychometrically accurate, whole-spine PROM provides clinicians, researchers, and patients with a reduced administrative burden as multiple PROMs are no longer required for different regions and conditions [3, 8, 9]. This directly reduces the key barriers to PROM adoption [10, 11], complies with why a PROM is chosen and used under the essential nine pragmatic requirements [12, 13], and provides the capacity for a consistent spine single-score, broadened data-pooling, meta-analysis [14], and the capacity to demonstrate whether specific healthcare delivery is effective or not [15].

To balance the psychometrics, practicality, and cultural transferability, any whole-spine PROM must comply with the ‘Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health status Measurement Instruments’ (COSMIN) standards [16]. The SFI-25 does this, being stringently developed and initially conference presented in 2004, with E-publication in 2013, with publication delays due to Journal submission processes and PhD by Portfolio requirements, with the official publication in 2019 affected by similar Journal-related delays [5]. This eventual peer validation permitted the inclusion of the SFI-25 within a whole-spine static-PROMs systematic review that considered the FRI and EASPS, where both had recognized concerns [8], but consequently did not include the PROMIS-PF. The FRI critiques were that it be used with caution till more robust high methodological quality studies are found to support its measurement properties [17], that it has item-construct deficiencies [18], and questionable ability to adequately represent whole-spine problems [8]. The EASPS, with 28–35 questions over four pages, is recognized as cumbersome with questionable COSMIN compliance [8].

The SFI-25 has had seven published validation studies [19–25], with a further comparative validation study under submission [26] and was most recently used in a chronic neck pain study [27]. These cultural-adaptation studies not only adapted and validated the SFI-25 for their specific linguistic and population requirements, but also performed criterion validity with multiple whole-spine, spine-region, general, and condition-specific populations. In each case, the SFI-25 was found preferable to the criteria PROMs that included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) [28], Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [29], Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ) [30], and Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (WDQ) [31]. Additionally, suitable correlation was demonstrated with the patient-specific function scale (PSFS) [5] and EuroQuol-Index (EQ-5D) [19, 20], but less so with an 11-point pain numerical rating scale (P-NRS) [19] and the SF-36 PF scale [26]. However, the SFI-25’s structural validity was not unanimous with a shortened version recommended in most studies to improve practicality and structural validity.

The PROMIS-PF, using ‘CAT’ in varied spine-specific populations [32, 33], captures similar information to static-legacy PROMs [34, 35] but with greater efficacy and accuracy [6, 7, 36]. However, many populations lack the computing and internet accessibility necessary for PROMIS-PF, which, coupled with patient settings and computer literacy, must be considered [37]. Additionally, though content validity is sufficient, evidence quality in adult populations is low-moderate, particularly for single body areas and conditions, and elderly minority populations [38]. Further, minimal spine studies incorporated PROMIS-PF for its outcome measurement use, with substantial variability in domain validity between PROMIS-PF and criteria static-PROM [39]. Consequently, there remains a place and need for a simple-to-use, accurate, and practical whole-spine static-PROM with low administrative burden [12, 40].

The advocated methodologies to shorten PROMs are two-fold, qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative approaches use expert committee consensus with the ‘concept-retention’ method advocated for being judgmental and retaining the original PROMs theoretical domains [41]. Quantitative approaches use statistical methods, with ‘factorial’ and ‘Rasch’ the most common [1, 41]. This study aimed to: 1) develop a shortened-SFI for assessing spine functional status; 2) determine the correlation between the shortened-SFI and whole-spine criteria; 3) assess the correlation between the shortened-SFI and regional-spine, condition-specific, and patient-specific; criteria 4) investigate the correlation between the shortened-SFI and general-health and pain criteria; 5) ensure that the shortened-SFI retains the psychometric characteristics of one-dimensional structural validity, high internal consistency, and no floor/ceiling effect; and 6) enhance the practicality of the shortened-SFI to reduce administrative burden.

Accordingly, we hypothesized that: 1) the developed shortened-SFI will exhibit a high correlation with whole-spine criteria; 2) the correlation between the shortened-SFI and regional-spine, condition-specific, and patient-specific criteria will be moderate; 3) the correlation between the shortened-SFI and general-health and pain criteria will be moderate to low; 4) the psychometric properties of the shortened-SFI, including one-dimensional structural validity, high internal consistency, and absence of floor/ceiling effects, will be retained; and 5) practical enhancements made to the shortened-SFI will result in a reduction of administrative burden.

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study (n = 505) was conducted to shorten the SFI-25 to the SFI-10. All subjects provided written informed consent with the study approved by the Ethical Committee of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão (approval protocol number 4.284.203).

Subjects

Participants were recruited from physiotherapy outpatients (n = 505, age = 18-87 yrs., av. = 40.3 ± 10.1 yrs., female = 50.5%, Table 1). There was no significant difference between the obtained SFI-10 scores by female (8.01 ± 6.14) and male (7.48 ± 5.60) (p = 0.317). Inclusion criteria were a medical/allied-health practitioner referral with a spine musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) diagnosis, sub-acute/chronic symptoms ≥ 2 weeks, age ≥ 18 years, written language competence, and informed written consent. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, age < 18 years, and red-flag signs [19, 23]. Table 1 Demographics for all study participants

Study	n	Age x̄	Age SD	Female n	Female%	Cx	Tx	Lx	Multi	
SFI-10 development and validation (Australian in English Language)	505	40.1	13.0	255	50.5	149	48	350	53	
Bejer 2019 [19]	Polish SFI	225	45.7	16	135	60	92	38	114	19	
Tonga 2015 [23]	Turkish SFI	285	45	1.0	207	73	129		151	5	
Mokhtarinia 2018 [22]	Persian SFI	224	38.8	10.9	104	46.4	112	13	87	12	
Freitas 2023 [26]	Brazilian SFI	194	29.1	8.5	136	70.1	38	60	96		
							36.3%	11.1%	55.7%	6.2%	
	TOTALS	1433	40.3 yrs Range 18-87 yrs	10.1 yrs	837	58.4%	520	159	798	89	
SFI indicates 25-item Spine Functional Index, n number, x̄ mean, SD standard deviation, % percent, Cx cervical, Tx thoracic, Lx lumbar

* Subregion % values include multi-area individuals within each of their symptomatic regions making the total > 100%

The post-hoc international sample (n = 1433, age = 18-91 yrs., av. = 40.3 ± 10.1 yrs., female = 58.4%, Table 1) included retrospective de-identified data obtained with permission from the original researchers of three additional published SFI-25 cross-cultural adaptation studies [19, 22, 23] and a further data set from a completed MSc research study [26] that has progressed to journal submission.

Measures

The spine functional index (25 items)

The SFI-25 has 25 item-questions with a 3-point response option ‘Yes’ (score = 1), ‘Partly/Sometimes’ (score = 1/2) and ‘No’ (score = 0). Item-questions have a biopsychosocial 60:40 item-question ratio [5, 42] with 15 ‘General’ (#1–15) and 10 ‘Region-specific’ (#16–25) item-questions. ‘Raw Score’ (0–25) totals from the summation of all item responses. The final score (0–100%: 0% = ‘worst possible’; 100% = ‘normal’/‘preinjury function’) is calculated by: [100-(Raw Score × 4)] [5], with two missing responses permitted and substituted with the average score of all responded item-questions [5].

Functional rating index

The FRI has 10 item-questions with five short-descriptive response options (0–4 Likert visual NRS). ‘Raw Score’ (0–40) totals from the summation of all item responses. The final score, (0–100%: (0% = ‘no problem/pain’; 100% = ‘worst possible’) is calculated by: [Raw Score × 2.5] with one response permitted for substitution [4].

Each of the other spine-regional and general criteria PROMs are described in their original respective publications.

Development and psychometric assessment of the SFI-10

‘Development’ the shortened version of the SFI-25 was done through a-priori determination of the minimum number of item-questions necessary to retain structural validity and optimal practicality without a computational aid. The minimum number was guided by Spearman-Brown’s ‘k value’ [43, 44], the optimal number by completion/scoring-time, accuracy, and no computational aid being required [12, 45]. Additionally, one-dimensional structural integrity was required along with face, content and criterion validity (Pearson’s or Spearman’s r), plus internal consistency (Cronbach’s α:scale-level > 0.75; item-level > 0.65) [46, 47].

Four methodological approaches obtained the required optimal number of item-questions.

Version A: qualitative ‘concept-retention’ [41] obtained consensus agreement using the “Ishikawa” qualitative process [48] from semi-structured interviews with ‘Expert’ (n = 7) and ‘Patient’ (n = 4) focus-groups [49]. The ‘Expert-group’ was four males and three females, included three physiotherapists, an occupational therapist, orthopedic specialist, registered nurse, and biostatistician. The ‘Patient-group,’ two males two female, paired for neck and back MSD.

Version B: quantitative ‘factorial’ used exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) with polychoric correlation matrix and robust diagonally weighted least squares (RDWLS) extraction (Factor loading> 0.40) [50] to obtain the highest loading items. Retained factors were defined through parallel analysis with random exchange of observed data and robust promin rotation [51, 52]. Model adequacy used Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO > 0.70) and Bartlett’s sphericity tests (p > 0.05) from FACTOR software. The confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) model used fit indices for: chi-square/degrees of freedom (chi-square/df < 3), root means square error of approximation (RMSEA<0.08; CI = 90%), comparative fit index (CFI > 0.90), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI > 0.90) from R-Studio software with Lavaan and SemPlot packages [53].

Version C: quantitative ‘Rasch’ extracted and confirmed the optimal-items through ‘Person Abilities’ and ‘Item Difficulties’ (preferred mean = 0.00); Personal separation reliability (PSR:cut-off> 0.70); one-dimensionality (Martin-Löf test:p > 0.05:n = 800 limit), and Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of Rasch-residuals Eigenvalues (cut-off = Linacare’s value< 2.0) [54]; ‘infit-outfit’ statistic elimination (range:0.5/0.7–1.3/1.5); item characteristic curves (ICCs); and thresholds proximity (three-response options crossover, with item difficulties ordering); ‘Wright-mapping’ (for item spacing and redundancy) [55]; ‘Algorithmic item-ranks’ and ‘Item-distances’; and Rasch corrected raw-scores (for person ability) [53].

Version D: ‘Random’ selected 10 random computer-generated items.

Validation’ selected the optimal shortened-version as that with the highest criterion-correlation (Pearson’s r) with whole-spine ‘Gold Standard’ criteria, the SFI-25 (n = 505, r > 0.95) and FRI (n = 343, r > 0.70) [47], supported by criterion validity cut-off scores (r > 0.50) with spine-regional instruments the NDI (n = 143), ODI (n = 194), RMQ (n = 31), and WDQ (n = 70), and the patient specific PSFS (n = 174). Full-sample structural validity was verified with EFA, CFA, and Rasch analysis, along with internal consistency (scale cut-off level:α > 0.75, item level:α > 0.65) and floor/ceiling effect from the percentage frequency for the highest/lowest scores (15% cut-off) [16].

A post-hoc pooled international sample (n = 1433) was analyzed to clarify structural validity, internal consistency, and floor/ceiling effect. Additionally, extracted Polish-study shortened-SFI scores (n = 225) [19] were compared with the SFI-25, spine-regional NDI (n = 49), ODI (n = 86), and general-health EQ-5D (n = 125) and pain P-NRS (n = 225); with the SFI-10 data referenced against the SFI-25. The Spearman r correlation coefficient (SCC) was used for non-normally distributed data.

The sociodemographic data and questionnaire scores used mean (x̄) and standard deviation (SD) in SPSS version 17 with significance:p < 0.05. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test verified data-distribution. Factorial/Rasch analyses were blinded to minimize bias.

Results

The ‘Development’ indicated the minimum number of item-questions was n = 8 (Spearman-Brown k = 3.33). The optimal number of item-questions was n = 10, (from options of SFI-8, 10, 12 and 15 items), as this required no computational aid and retained the biopsychosocial 60:40 item-question ratio with six ‘General’ (#1–6) and four ‘Region-specific’ (#7–10) items (Fig. 1). The item-reduction and selection process confirmed face and content validity. The SFI-10 ‘Raw Score’ (0–10) is totaled from the summation of all item responses with the final score from: [100-(Raw Score × 10)], with one missing response and substitution permitted.Fig. 1 Reduction Approaches: Items and overlap of the three SFI-10 reduction methods and Pearson’s r correlation with: original SFI-25 (*n = 505, **n = 1433); and # = FRI (n = 343). Preferred SFI-10 was Concept version with the highest r value. Concept = qualitative concept-retention method; Factorial = factor analysis method; Rasch = Rasch analysis method. (Only two items were shared in all three methods. Concept shared the most items, then Factorial, then Rasch)

‘Validation’ selected the 10-item qualitative concept-retention version as it: provided the highest Pearson’s r criterion-correlation with whole-spine criteria (SFI-25, r = 0.967, n = 505; FRI, r = 0.810, n = 343, Table 2); being supported by spine-regional and patient-specific criteria (r > 0.70, Table 3), except the NDI (r = 0.693) which approximated the r = 0.70 cut-off. Table 2 Criterion validity comparing SFI-10 versions with the SFI-25 and FRI

		SFI-25	SFI-10	
Phase		Version A Qualitative ‘Concept’	Version B Quantitative ‘Factorial’	Version C Quantitative ‘Rasch’	Version D Computerized ‘Random’	
Australian sample (PCC)	SFI-25 ( n  = 505)		# 0.967*	0.951*	0.939	0.955*	
FRI ( n  = 343)	0.818	# 0.810**	0.788**	0.792**	0.788**	
Pooled International sample (SCC) [19, 22, 23, 26]	SFI-25 ( n  = 1433)		# 0.950*	0.934	0.912	0.938	
SFI indicates Spine Functional Index, PCC Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient for normally distributed data, FRI Functional Rating Index

*PCC/SCC: r > 0.95 with the SFI-25; and **r > 0.70 with the FRI as the indicator of potential suitability to substitute for the SFI-25

# PCC/SCC Highest value was the preferred version

Table 3 Criterion validity for the SFI-25 and SFI-10 from existing published research

PROM	Australian (PCC)	Polish [19] (SCC)	Turkish [23] (PCC)	Persian [22] (PCC)	Spanish [20] (PCC)	Chinese [24] (PCC)	Korean [21] (PCC)	Greek [25] (PCC)	
SFI-25	SFI-10	SFI-25	SFI-10	SFI-25	SFI-25	SFI-25	SFI-25	SFI-25	SFI-25	
SFI-25		0.965 (n = 505)		0.943 (n = 225)							
0.950 (n = 1433)	
FRI	0.832 (n = 343)	0.810 (n = 343)			0.52 (n = 285)			0.66 (n = 265)	0.57 (n = 60)		
ODI	0.818 (n = 194)	0.780 (n = 194)	0.800 (n = 86)	0.797 (n = 86)	0.71 (n = 151)			0.75 (n = 142)		0.58 (n = 60)	
RMDQ	0.976 (n = 31)	0.893 (n = 31)				0.69 (n = 114)	0.79 (n = 133)		0.75 (n = 42)	0.70 (n = 60)	
NDI	0.748 (n = 143)	0.693 (n = 183)	0.548 (n = 49)	0.321 (n = 49)	0.58 (n = 129)	0.57 (n = 124)		0.61 (n = 118)	0.53 (n = 26)		
WDQ	0.883 (n = 70)	0.837 (n = 70)									
PSFS	0.743 (n = 174)	0.734 (n = 174)									
EQ-Index			0.408 (n = 125)	0.532 (n = 125)			0.42 (n = 226)				
P-NRS (SCC)			−0.377 (n = 225)	−0.423 (n = 225)							
SFI indicates Spine Functional Index, PCC Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient for normally distributed data, SCC Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient for non-normally distributed data, FRI Functional Rating Index, ODI Oswestry Disability Index, RMDQ Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, NDI Neck Disability Index, WDQ Whiplash Disability Questionnaire, PSFS Patient Specific Index, EQ-Index EuroQol Index, P-NRS Pain Numerical Rating Scale

The ten items selected were: ‘Avoid Heavy Jobs,’ ‘Pain/Problem,’ ‘Duties/Chores,’ ‘Sleep,’ ‘Personal Care,’ Daily Activity,’ ‘Dressing,’ ‘Sitting,’ ‘Standing,’ and ‘Reach/Bend Down’.

Structural validity met the a-priori requirements. The EFA identified a one-dimensional structure (Fig. 2) (KMO = 0.79; Bartlett’s test p < 0.05). The CFA confirmed EFA with fit indices: chi-square/df = 2.06, CFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.073 (0.049, 0.096) (Table 4). Appropriate factor loadings (> 0.40) were demonstrated between domains and items (Fig. 3).Fig. 2 Representative Scree Plot for SFI-10 EFA (n = 505). Post-hoc retrospective pooled samples (n = 1433) are similar with inflection at point #2

Table 4 Structural validity determination from factorial (CFA) analysis

Study group	Chi-square/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	
n = 505	2.06	0.952	0.939	0.073 (0.049, 0.096)	
n = 1433	2.92	0.961	0.950	0.069 (0.062, 0.077)	
df indicates degrees of freedom, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA root means square error of approximation, CI confidence interval

Fig. 3 Representative Scree Plot for SFI-10 EFA (n = 505). Post-hoc retrospective pooled samples (n = 1433) are similar with inflection at point #2

Rasch analysis demonstrated adequate model fit (Table 5). ‘Person Abilities’ and ‘Item Difficulties’ indicated all tasks were within performance capacity, and PSR scores (0.71:0.79:0.75) exceeded the cut-off (> 0.70). One-dimensionality hypothesis (Martin-Löf test) was accepted (p > 0.50). Cut-off compliance was demonstrated for Rasch-residuals PCA (1.45–1.52:< 2.0), Infit-Outfit statistics (0.5–1.5), and item-difficulties (Table 5). Wright Map item-spacing and redundancy were acceptable, though some excess-spacing was present, but overall supported the selected item-shortening methodology. The ICC and Thresholds approximated a common point. Rasch corrected raw scores were completed (range:0–10). Rasch-analysis indicated the SFI-10 preserved the critical Rasch model-fit. Table 5 Rasch analysis of the SFI-10 (n = 505 and n = 1433 are similar)

Item	SFI-25 Item #	Outfit	Infit	Item Difficulties	
n = 505	n = 1433	n = 505	n = 1433	n = 505	n = 1433	
1. Avoid Heavy Jobs	3.	1038	1167	0,967	1051	−0,675	− 0,535	
2. Pain / Problem	6.	1001	1038	0,991	1022	−0,833	−0,570	
3. Duties / Chores	10.	0,648	0,699	0,715	0,771	−0,071	0,093	
4. Sleep	11.	1236	1277	1171	1174	−0,463	−0,416	
5. Personal Care	12.	1231	0,992	1105	1005	1414	0,841	
6. Daily Activity	13.	0,785	0,805	0,812	0,822	−0,229	−0,056	
7. Dressing	16.	1040	0,971	0,993	0,963	0,606	0,247	
8. Sitting	20.	0,969	0,996	0,952	0,948	−0,308	−0,239	
9. Stand	22.	0,985	0,938	1005	0,951	0,015	−0,058	
10. Reach/Bend Down	24.	0,848	0,890	0,877	0,918	−0,196	− 0,024	
SFI indicates Spine Functional Index

Internal consistency exceeded the a priori cut-off (scale level α = 0.803, item level α > 0.65). No floor/ceiling effects were found as minimum/maximum scores were < 15%.

Post-hoc analysis of the pooled international sample (n = 1433) confirmed the ‘concept-retention’ findings with the highest Pearson’s r criterion validity compared with the whole-spine criteria (Table 2). The structural validity was one-dimensional where EFA used implementation of parallel analysis (KMO = 0.89, Bartlett’s test p < 0.05), and CFA fit indices approximated the main study (Table 4): chi-square/df = 2.92, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.950, RMSEA (90% CI = 0.069, 0.062, 0.077), with appropriate factor loadings (> 0.40) between domains and items. Rasch analysis approximated the main study and reinforced the one-dimensionality (Table 5). Internal consistency was high (scale level α = 0.863, item level α > 0.65) with no floor/ceiling effects.

The extracted Polish SFI-10 data criterion findings (Table 3) approximated the main study SFI-25 (r = 0.943 vs 0.965), ODI (r = 0.797 vs 0.780) except for the NDI (r = 0.321 vs 0.693). Similar correlations were found for the Polish SFI-25 with the spine-regional ODI, the EQ-5D and P-NRS criteria. The nine SFI-25 studies’ criteria findings were also comparable for the FRI, spine-regional, EQ-5D, and pain (Table 3).

Discussion

The study’s essential aims were achieved with a shortened SFI-10 developed. Face and concept validity were demonstrated by the reduction process with the criterion and structural validity confirmed by the psychometric analysis. The SFI-10 correlated highly with whole-spine criteria PROMs, moderately with region-specific, patient-specific, and condition-specific, and moderate-low for general-health and pain. Practicality was improved by 60%, though completion/scoring time/errors require quantification. The SFI-10 qualitative ‘concept-retention’ version demonstrated higher criterion validity with whole-spine criteria than the quantitative ‘factorial’ and ‘Rasch’ versions, where both interestingly showed lower PCC values than the control/random (Table 2). Criterion validity was comparable with the FRI and slightly below the SFI-25 in the same sample and the original Australian SFI-25 study [5], but exceeded the Turkish [23], Korean [21] and Chinese [24] findings (Table 3).

Structural validity was unequivocally one-dimensional, being supported by factorial and Rasch analysis in the full n = 505 sample and the post-hoc international sample (n = 1433). This complied with previous research recommendations that factor structure be improved as, although a dominant single-factor was present, 6–8 factors were demonstrated [5, 20, 22, 23]. Spine-regional and patient-specific criteria correlations approximated the SFI-25 findings, but the RMQ and NDI were notably lower (Table 3). However, SFI-10 spine-regional and general-health criteria exceeded those of six SFI-25 studies [20–25] (Table 3).

Importantly, the SFI-10 retained the biopsychosocial 60:40 ratio conceptual model of general-versus-regional items [5, 42], which could not be maintained in the SFI-8, 12, and 15 item versions, each of which also required a computational aid. This biopsychosocial balance reduces risks of confounding ‘functional’ and ‘symptomatic’ change [56] while accommodating pain without potentially affecting responsiveness [57]. The increased SFI-10 practicality improved the scoring process without the need for a computational aid through a simple calculation of ‘× 10’ converting raw-scores to percentages [13, 45]. This should ensure lower administrative burden through reduced completion/scoring times [19, 40] and minimal potential errors [13], while complying with the essential nine pragmatic decisions for choosing and using a PROM [12]. In general, the popularity of short scales is explained by their need for reduced resources, particularly administrative burden and subsequent related costs [10, 40]. These findings reflect the two essential reasons for PROM shortening, practicality improvements and retaining validity and factor structure [16], as face, content, criterion, and structural validity must be retained [1, 46].

The preferred ‘concept-retention’ methodology supports similar PROM-shortening research where qualitative versions were superior to quantitative. This was demonstrated for the Quick-DASH (11-items) from the DASH (30-item) [41], though factor structure was not one-dimensional and practicality remained impaired as computational assistance was required. Similarly, concept-retention methodology produced the 10-item lower limb functional index (LLFI-10) from the LLFI-25 as a practical solution with one-dimensional validation in burns [58]. The 12-item Orebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire (OMSQ-12) improved the practicality of the original 21-item OMPainSQ and retained the critical psychometric characteristics for biopsychosocial risk screening [59, 60]. This contrasts with a qualitative ‘author-determined’ OMPainSQ-10 approach [61], where criterion validity was below the random version, as found in this study, and notably below the ‘concept-retention’ version [59]. The shortened NDI-5 combined qualitative and quantitative approaches, retained a one-dimensional structure [1, 56], and balanced psychometric and practical characteristics when compared to the 10-item version, the quantitative NDI-8 Rasch-version [57], and the NDI-7 factorial-version [1]. Various qualitative processes reduced the RMQ from 24 to 18 and 11 items [62], with the former, found preferable [62, 63]. However, no RMQ qualitative shortened version is available, and a computational aid remains necessary for all for practicality in calculating the scores of all RMQ versions. However, the question remains as to what is ‘the optimal minimum number’ of item-questions that provides a sufficiently broad representation of the required domains [64], and can this be represented by only five items as per the NDI-5 [1, 56].

This study demonstrated and reinforced that a qualitative approach does produce a shortened-PROM that has balanced the requirements for critical psychometric characteristics and one-dimensional structural validity while concurrently improving practicality. Very short scales, below 10-items, increase the measurement error from lower precision [64], hence the SFI-10 version appears an appropriate solution. Consequently, this concept-retention qualitative item-reduction process can be confidently applied to similar regional PROMs to facilitate their application in clinical and research settings.

Study limitations and strengths

Study limitations include potential patient selection bias as recruitment was from primary contact and referred physiotherapy outpatients, consequently inpatient and community settings will need to be investigated. There is a lack of prospective data and repeated psychometric and practicality analysis. This leaves a knowledge gap in the test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and error scores, including both minimal detectable change and minimal clinically significant difference. Consequently, there is a need for longitudinal analysis, that includes patient-specific change, to clarify these psychometric properties. Further, the practical aspects of readability, missing responses, and administrative burden from completion and scoring times/errors must be quantified. Each of these latter limitations are now addressed in a subsequent study.

Study strengths included the large sample size and the clarification of findings in a further pooled international sample. Additionally, the SFI-10 development exceeded the minimal COSMIN standards and cut-off requirements. This incorporated the cross-sectional analysis and the pooled international sample from diverse populations with broad diagnoses.

Conclusions

This study developed a shortened 10-item SFI-10 whole-spine PROM and verified structural validity through factorial and Rasch analysis, criterion validity and internal consistency with no floor/ceiling effects. The pooled MSD population of diverse age, culture, and clinical settings supported potential generalizability for outpatient settings, but inpatient and community settings require investigation. The improved practicality and unequivocal one-dimensional factor structure provided a summated score that is easily and rapidly determined without a computational aid. These attributes imply that the SFI-10 can be used in preference to the existing whole-spine and spine-regional PROMs in clinical and research settings. Further longitudinal research is currently underway to determine the critical psychometric characteristics of test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and error scores; and to quantify the practical characteristics of readability and administrative burden that include completion and scoring time/errors. Subsequently, a systematic review that includes the SFI-10 and published SFI-25 studies would further inform and clarify the clinimetric properties.

Abbreviations

AP Parallel analysis

AUC Area under the curve

CFA Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI Comparative fit index

COSMIN COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments

Df Degrees of freedom

EASPS Extended aberdeen spine pain scale

EFA Exploratory factor analysis

EQ-5D EuroQol 5-dimensions questionnaire

ES Effect size

FRI Functional rating index

G-NRS Global-numerical rating scales (perceived function)

ICC Intra-class correlation coefficient

KMO Kaiser-meyer-olkin test

K-S Kolmogorov-smirnov statistic

MCID Minimal clinically important difference

MDC Minimum detectable change

MSD Musculoskeletal disorder

N Number

NDI Neck disability index

ODI Oswestry disability index

PCA Principal component analysis

PCC Pearson’s correlation coefficient

P-NRS Numerical rating scales (perceived pain)

PROM Patient reported outcome measure

PSFS Patient specific functional scale

PSR Personal separation reliability

RDWLS Robust diagonally weighted least squares

RMDQ Roland morris disability questionnaire

RMSEA Root means square error of approximation

ROC Receiver operating curves

SCC Spearman’s correlation coefficient

SD Standard deviation

sec Seconds

SEM Standard error of the measurement

SFI-10 Spine functional index, 10-items

SFI-25 Spine functional index, 25-items

SPSS Statistical package for the social sciences

SRM Standard response mean

TLI Tucker-lewis index

WDQ Whiplash disability questionnaire

α Cronbach’s alpha

Acknowledgements

Łukasz Deryło, MSc (Statistics), lukasz.derylo@gmail.com. Independent Statistician Cracow, Poland.

Henrique Yuji Takahasi, PT, hytakahasi@gmail.com - Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Maranhao, Sao Luis, Maranhao, Brazil.

Meihua Qian, PhD, mqian@g.clemson.edu - Department of Education and Human Development, College of Education, Statistics, Clemson University, SC, USA.

Ed Leahy, PT PhD, E.Leahy@latrobe.edu.au Department of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Australia.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by CP.G, HR.M, A,C, A.B. Data analysis by CP.G, AC, A.V, HR.M, and A.B with assistance from acknowledged contributors L.D, H.T and M.Q. the first original draft preparation was by CP.G and M.M. Review and editing was performed by all authors who commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript and contributed to the final draft CP.G, M.M, A.C, A.V, HR.M, and A.B. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

No funding has been received by any agency in relation to this research.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, HRM.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão (approval protocol number 4.284.203).

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. All methods of assessment were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and published papers.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Barreto FS Avila MA Pinheiro JS Almeida MQG Ferreira CSB Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA Dibai-Filho AV Less is more: five-item neck disability index to assess chronic neck pain patients in Brazil Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021 46 12 E688 E693 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003872 33315776
2. Hoffman J Gabel CP Expanding Panjabi's stability model to express movement: a theoretical model Med Hypotheses 2013 80 6 692 697 10.1016/j.mehy.2013.02.006 23561576
3. Williams N Wilkinson C Russell IT Extending the Aberdeen Back pain scale to include the whole spine: a set of outcome measures for the neck, upper and lower back Pain 2001 94 3 261 274 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00360-8 11731063
4. Feise RJ Menke JM Functional rating index. A new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions Spine 2001 26 1 78 86 10.1097/00007632-200101010-00015 11148650
5. Gabel CP Melloh M Burkett B Michener LA The spine functional index: development and clinimetric validation of a new whole-spine functional outcome measure Spine J 2019 19 2 e19 e27 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.055 24370272
6. Papuga MO Mesfin A Molinari R Rubery PT Correlation of PROMIS physical function and pain CAT instruments with Oswestry disability index and neck disability index in spine patients Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016 41 14 1153 1159 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001518 26909832
7. Tishelman JC, Vasquez-Montes D, Jevotovsky DS, Stekas N, Moses MJ, Karia RJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments: outperforming traditional quality of life measures in patients with back and neck pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019:1–6.
8. Leahy E, Davidson M, Benjamin D, Wajswelner H: Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Questionnaires for People With Pain in Any Spine Region. A Systematic Review. Man ther 2016, Man Ther(22):22–30.
9. Boody BS Bhatt S Mazmudar AS Hsu WK Rothrock NE Patel AA Validation of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery J Neurosurg Spine 2018 28 3 268 279 10.3171/2017.7.SPINE17661 29303468
10. Crossnohere NL Brundage M Calvert MJ King M Reeve BB Thorner E Wu AW Snyder C International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review Qual Life Res 2021 30 21 40 10.1007/s11136-020-02625-z 32926299
11. Lam KC Harrington KM Cameron KL Valier ARS Use of patient-reported outcome measures in athletic training: common measures, selection considerations, and practical barriers J Athl Train 2019 54 4 449 458 10.4085/1062-6050-108-17 30933607
12. Kroenke K Miksch TA Spaulding AC Mazza GL DeStephano CC Niazi SK Illies AJC Bydon M Novotny PJ Goyal A Choosing and using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022 103 5s S108 s117 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.033 33713697
13. Long C, Beres LK, Wu AW, Giladi AM: Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2021, E-Pub 17 Sept 2021(1).
14. Morris T Hee SW Stallard N Underwood M Patel S Can We Convert Between Outcome Measures of Disability for Chronic Low Back Pain? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015 40 10 734 739 25955090
15. Hsiao CJ Dymek C Kim B Russell B Advancing the use of patient-reported outcomes in practice: understanding challenges, opportunities, and the potential of health information technology Qual Life Res 2019 28 6 1575 1583 10.1007/s11136-019-02112-0 30684149
16. Prinsen CA Mokkink LB Bouter LM Alonso J Patrick DL de Vet HCW Terwee CB COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures Qual Life Res 2018 27 5 1147 1157 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 29435801
17. Bai Z Shu T Lu J Niu W Measurement properties of the functional rating index: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018 43 22 E1340 e1349 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002690 29659440
18. Menke JM The functional rating index: twenty years of invalid measurement Spine 2022 47 7 574 581 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004298 34816815
19. Bejer A Kupczyk M Kwaśny J Majkut A Moskal K Niemiec M Gabel CP Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the polish version of the spine functional index Eur Spine J 2019 29 6 1424 1434 10.1007/s00586-019-06250-4 31893306
20. Cuesta-Vargas AI, Gabel CP. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the spine functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(96).
21. In TS The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the spine functional index J Phys Ther Sci 2017 29 6 1082 1084 10.1589/jpts.29.1082 28626330
22. Mokhtarinia HR Hosseini A Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A Gabel CP Zohrabi M Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the spine functional index Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018 16 1 95 10.1186/s12955-018-0928-5 29764442
23. Tonga E Gabel CP Karayazgan S Cuesta-Vargas AI Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the spine functional index Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015 13 30 10.1186/s12955-015-0219-3 25879743
24. Zhou X Xu X Fan J Wang F Wu S Zhang Z Yang Y Li M Weil X Cross-cultural validation of simplified Chinese version of spine functional index Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017 15 203 10.1186/s12955-017-0785-7 29047361
25. Georgoudis G, Sotiropoulos S, Skouras A, Likourgia I, Retalis E, Karameri M. Musculoskeletal functional assessment: cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Greek version of the spine functional index (SFI). In: World congress of physiotherapy: 2019. Geneva; 2019.
26. FREITAS, Devyd Weyder do Nascimento. Tradução, Adaptação Transcultural E Validação Do Spine Functional Index Para O Português Brasileiro. 2023. https://bdtd.ibict.br/vufind/Record/UFMA_7383d9e4d10f84bc21094360e3a05b95.
27. Hessam M, Narimisa M, Monjezi S, Saadat M. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important changes tophysical therapy interventions of Persian versions of copenhagen neck functional disability index, neckbournemouth questionnaire and spine functional index questionnaires in people with chronic neck pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023:1–8. 10.1080/09593985.2023.2210679.
28. Vernon H Mior S The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity J Manip Physiol Ther 1991 14 7 409 415
29. Fairbank JCT Pynsent PB The Oswestry disability index Spine 2000 25 22 2940 2952 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 11074683
30. Roland M Morris R A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain Spine 1983 8 141 144 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 6222486
31. Pinfold M Niere KR O'Leary EF Hoving JL Green S Buchbinder R Validity and internal consistency of a whiplash-specific disability measure Spine 2004 29 3 263 268 10.1097/01.BRS.0000107238.15526.4C 14752347
32. Bernstein DN Greenstein AS D'Amore T Mesfin A Do PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and depression correlate to the oswestry disability index and neck disability index in spine trauma patients? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020 45 11 764 769 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003376 31923130
33. Passias PG Pierce KE Krol O Williamson T Naessig S Ahmad W Passfall L Tretiakov P Imbo B Joujon-Roche R Health-related quality of life measures in adult spinal deformity: can we replace the SRS-22 with PROMIS? Eur Spine J 2022 31 5 1184 1188 10.1007/s00586-021-07106-6 35013830
34. Hung M Hon SD Franklin JD Kendall RW Lawrence BD Neese A Cheng C Brodke DS Psychometric properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014 39 2 158 163 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000097 24173018
35. Brodke DS Goz V Voss MW Lawrence BD Spiker WR Hung M PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in spine patients Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017 42 12 921 929 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001965 27792105
36. Ziedas A Abed V Bench C Rahman T Makhni MC Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function instruments compare favorably to legacy patient-reported outcome measures in spine patients: a systematic review of the literature Spine J 2022 22 4 646 659 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.009 34699997
37. Rafiq RB Yount S Jerousek S Roth EJ Cella D Albert MV Heinemann AW Feasibility of PROMIS using computerized adaptive testing during inpatient rehabilitation J Patient-Rep Outcomes 2023 7 1 44 10.1186/s41687-023-00567-x 37162607
38. Zonjee VJ Abma IL de Mooij MJ van Schaik SM Van den Berg-Vos RM Roorda LD Terwee CB The patient-reported outcomes measurement information systems (PROMIS®) physical function and its derivative measures in adults: a systematic review of content validity Qual Life Res 2022 31 12 3317 3330 10.1007/s11136-022-03151-w 35622294
39. Haws BE Khechen B Bawa MS Patel DV Bawa HS Bohl DD Wiggins AB Cardinal KL Guntin JA Singh K The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system in spine surgery: a systematic review J Neurosurg Spine 2019 30 3 405 413 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18608 30611150
40. Aiyegbusi OL Roydhouse J Rivera SC Kamudoni P Schache P Wilson R Stephens R Calvert M Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection Nat Commun 2022 13 1 6026 10.1038/s41467-022-33826-4 36224187
41. Beaton DE Wright JG Katz JN Group UEC Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005 87 5 1038 1046 15866967
42. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) www.who.int/icidh .
43. Spearman C. Correlation Calculated from Faulty Data. Br J Psychol. 1910;3:271–95. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00206.x.
44. Brown W Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities 1 Br J Psychol 1904–1920 1910 3 3 296 322 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00207.x
45. Krosnick JA Vannette DL Krosnick JA Questionnaire Design The Palgrave handbook of survey research 2018 Cham Springer International Publishing 439 455
46. de Vet HCW Mokkink LB Mosmuller DG Terwee CB Spearman-Brown prophecy formula and Cronbach's alpha: different faces of reliability and opportunities for new applications J Clin Epidemiol 2017 85 45 49 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.013 28342902
47. Field A Discovering statistics using SPSS 2009 3 London SAGE Publications Ltd
48. Ishikawa K Loftus JH Introduction to quality control 1990 Tokyo 3A Corporation
49. Johnson RB Onwuegbuzie AJ Turner LA Toward a definition of mixed methods research J Mixed Methods Res 2007 1 2 112 10.1177/1558689806298224
50. Schermelleh-Engel K Moosbrugger H Müller H Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures MPR-online 2003 8 May 23 74
51. Timmerman ME Lorenzo-Seva U Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis Psychol Methods 2011 16 209 220 10.1037/a0023353 21500916
52. Lorenzo-Seva U Ferrando PJ Robust Promin: a method for diagonally weighted factor rotation Lib Rev Peru Psicol 2019 25 1 99 106
53. Mair P Hatzinger R Extended Rasch modeling: the eRm package for the application of IRT models in R J Stat Softw 2007 20 9 1 20 10.18637/jss.v020.i09
54. Linacre M Teaching Rasch measurement Rasch Meas Trans. 2017 31 2 1630 1631
55. Wright BD Masters GN Rating scale analysis 1982 Chicago, Illinois MESA Press
56. Walton DM, MacDermid JC. A brief 5-item version of the neck disability index shows good psychometric properties. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(108).
57. van der Velde G Beaton D Hogg-Johnston S Hurwitz E Tennant A Rasch analysis provides new insights into the measurement properties of the neck disability index Arthritis Rheum 2009 61 4 544 551 10.1002/art.24399 19333989
58. Gittings PM Heberlien N Devenish N Parker M Phillips M Wood FM Edgar DW The lower limb functional index - a reliable and valid functional outcome assessment in burns Burns 2016 pii: S0305-4179 16 30053 30055
59. Gabel CP Melloh M Yelland M Burkett B The shortened Örebro musculoskeletal screening questionnaire: evaluation in a work-injured population Man Ther 2013 18 5 378 385 10.1016/j.math.2013.01.002 23415639
60. Shafeei A Mokhtarinia HR Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A Piri L Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire Asian Spine J. 2017 11 4 520 10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.520 28874969
61. Linton SJ Nicholas M MacDonald S Development of a short form of the Örebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 36 22 1891 1895 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f8f775 21192286
62. Williams RM Myers AM Support for a shortened Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for patients with acute low back pain Physio Can 2001 53 60 66
63. Macedo LG Maher CG Latimer J Hancock MJ Machado LA McAuley JH Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris disability questionnaire Eur Spine J 2011 20 3 458 463 10.1007/s00586-010-1608-2 21069545
64. Bowling A Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 59 5 342 345 10.1136/jech.2004.021204 15831678
