Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 88–93 | Cite as

Reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the neck disability index-Dutch version in primary care

  • Luc AillietEmail author
  • S. M. Rubinstein
  • H. C. W. de Vet
  • M. W. van Tulder
  • C. B. Terwee
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To establish an evidence-based recommendation for the pragmatic use of the Neck Disability Index-Dutch Version (NDI-DV) in primary care based on an assessment of the reliability, the responsiveness, and the interpretability of the NDI-DV.

Study design and setting/methods

At baseline, the NDI-DV was completed by 337 patients with neck pain presenting to 97 chiropractic clinics in Belgium and the Netherlands. Three months after inclusion, 265 patients provided data to assess the responsiveness and interpretability. Reliability was assessed in 155 patients (retested after 10 days) by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient for agreement (ICCagreement) and the measurement error (standard error of measurement, SEM), the latter resulting in the smallest detectable change (SDC). The minimal important change (MIC) was assessed by the anchor-based MIC distribution using self-reported perceived recovery as anchor. We tested interpretability by relating SDC to MIC.

Results

The ICCagreement was 0.88. The SEMagreement was 1.95 resulting in a SDC of 5.40. The NDI-DV appeared to be responsive, being able to distinguish improved from stable patients with an area under the curve of 0.85. The MIC was 4.50.

Conclusion

The NDI-DV has good reliability and responsiveness and may be used in clinical practice in Belgium and the Netherlands. A change score of 5 is important for patients, but has a 7 % chance to be due to measurement error.

Keywords

Neck disability index Standard error of measurement Smallest detectable change Minimal important change Responsiveness Interpretability 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Luc Ailliet, the corresponding author, is as a Ph.D. student financially supported by the European Chiropractic Union, the Belgian Chiropractic Union, the Dutch Chiropractic Association (NCA) and l’Institut Franco-Européen de Chiropratique (IFEC, Paris, France). The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors, and no official endorsements by supporting agencies are intended or should be inferred.

References

  1. 1.
    Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH (2007) Patient reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10(Suppl 2):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB (2012) Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 21(4):659–670PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Terwee CB (2011) Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systemic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:87PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) International consensus on taxonomy, terminology and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient reported outcomes: result of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL (2011) Measurement in medicine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF (2012) Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of neck pain and disability scale and neck disability index. Eur Spine J 21:2550–2557PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF (2012) Neck pain and disability scale and neck disability index: validity of Dutch language versions. Eur Spine J 21:93–100PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Köke AJA, Heuts PHTG, Vlayen JWS, Weber WEJ (1996) Neck disability index. In: Köke AJA (ed) Meetinstrumenten chronische pijn. Deel 1 functionele status. Pijn Kennis Centrum Maastricht, pp 94–95Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macdermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, Mcalpine C, Goldsmith CH (2009) Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 39(5):400–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Vet HCW, Ostelo RWJG, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, Van Tulder MW, De Vet HCW (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31:578–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Boer MR, De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH (2005) Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1260–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vos CJ, Verhagen AP, Koes BW (2006) Reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the neck disability index in patients with acute neck pain in general practice. Eur Spine J 15:1729–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Minimal clinically important change of the neck disability index and the numerical rating scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 32:3047–3051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Velde G, Beaton D, Hogg-Johnston S, Hurwitz E, Tennant A (2009) Rash analysis provides new insight into the measurement properties of the neck disability index. Arthritis Rheum 61(4):544–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HCW (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:524–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc Ailliet
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. M. Rubinstein
    • 1
    • 3
  • H. C. W. de Vet
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. W. van Tulder
    • 1
    • 3
  • C. B. Terwee
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care ResearchVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute of Health SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations