Perceived functional ability assessed with the spinal function sort: is it valid for European rehabilitation settings in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain?
- 157 Downloads
The aim of this study involving 170 patients suffering from non-specific low back pain was to test the validity of the spinal function sort (SFS) in a European rehabilitation setting. The SFS, a picture-based questionnaire, assesses perceived functional ability of work tasks involving the spine. All measurements were taken by a blinded research assistant; work status was assessed with questionnaires. Our study demonstrated a high internal consistency shown by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.98, reasonable evidence for unidimensionality, spearman correlations of >0.6 with work activities, and discriminating power for work status at 3 and 12 months by ROC curve analysis (area under curve = 0.760 (95% CI 0.689–0.822), respectively, 0.801 (95% CI 0.731–0.859). The standardised response mean within the two treatment groups was 0.18 and −0.31. As a result, we conclude that the perceived functional ability for work tasks can be validly assessed with the SFS in a European rehabilitation setting in patients with non-specific low back pain, and is predictive for future work status.
KeywordsBack pain Perceived functional ability Assessment Validity Work
The randomised controlled trial was supported by the Swiss Federal Office of Health (Grant no. 00.00437). We thank Patricia Bigger, who performed the postal follow-up measurements persistently and with admirable patience, and Ariane Knüsel for her assistance in preparing the manuscript.
- 2.Fordyce W (1995) Back pain in the workplace: management of disability in nonspecific conditions: task force on pain in the workplace. IASP Press, Seattle Google Scholar
- 4.Waddell G (1998) The back pain revolution. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- 5.COST B (2006) European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 2):S125–S300Google Scholar
- 6.Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Valat JP, Nordin M, Avouac B, Blotman F, Charlot J, Dreiser RL, Legrand E, Rozenberg S, Vautravers P (2000) The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Back Pain. Spine 25:1S–33SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran V (ed) Encyclopedia of human behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp 71–88Google Scholar
- 11.Adams J (2009) Literacy levels required to complete the patients reported functional outcomes measures in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 68:771Google Scholar
- 12.Oliveri M (2004) Arbeitsbezogene funktionelle Leistungsfähigkeit (Evaluation der funktionellen Leistungsfähigkeit EFL). In: Hildebrandt J, Müller G, Pfingsten M (eds) Lendenwirbelsäule Ursachen, Diagnostik und Therapie von Rückenschmerzen. Urban & Fischer, München, pp 220–235Google Scholar
- 17.Kool J, Bachmann S, Oesch P, Knuesel O, Ambergen T, de Bie R, van den Brandt P (2007) Function-centered rehabilitation increases work days in patients with nonacute nonspecific low back pain: 1-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88:1089–1094CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Matheson LN, Matheson M (1989) Spinal function sort, rating of perceived capacity. Performance Assessment and Capacity Testing PACT. Performance Assessment and Capacity Testing PACT, Trabuco Canyon, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 19.Biering-Sorensen F (1984) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:106–119Google Scholar
- 20.Isernhagen S (1995) Contemporary issues in functional capacity evaluation. In: Isernhagen S (ed) The comprehensive guide to work injury management. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, pp 410–429Google Scholar
- 22.Bryman A (2004) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 23.Polit D, Beck C (2008) Developing and testing self-report scales. In: Polit D, Beck C (eds) Nursing research, generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 474–505Google Scholar