Skip to main content

Measurement of clinically relevant functional health perceptions in patients with whiplash-associated disorders: the development of the whiplash specific activity and participation list (WAL)

Abstract

Purpose

The International Classification of Human Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) provides insight into functional health status in patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). In the assessment of functional limitations in patients with WAD, there are several condition-specific questionnaires available. Estimation of the true relationship between the separate constructs of the ICF is only possible if the items of the salient questionnaires measure exactly the constructs of interest, while not simultaneously measuring other constructs of the model. This study aimed to develop a condition specific and clinically relevant and usable instrument for patients with WAD that measures activity limitations and participation restrictions, as defined by the ICF framework.

Methods

Item generation consisted of (1) a semi-structured interview which was conducted among 69 WAD patients; (2) a Delphi study involving 13 health professionals experienced in the assessment of patients with WAD; (3) a literature search for items from self-assessment questionnaires for neck pain.

Results

A 35-item condition-specific self-assessment questionnaire for patients with WAD was developed. This new questionnaire measures purely activity limitations and participation restrictions according to the ICF and is based on patients’ opinions and expert opinions.

Conclusion

The whiplash activity and participation list tends to measure clinically relevant activity limitations and participation restrictions in WAD patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Cote P (2006) Frequency, timing, and course of depressive symptomatology after whiplash. Spine 31(16):E551–E556

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pinfold M et al (2004) Validity and internal consistency of a whiplash-specific disability measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(3):263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lovell ME, Galasko CS (2002) Whiplash disorders—a review. Injury 33(2):97–101

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sterling M (2006) Identifying those at risk of developing persistent pain following a motor vehicle collision. J Rheumatol 33(5):838–839

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Steiner WA et al (2002) Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Phys Ther 82(11):1098–1107

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pollard B, Johnston M, Dixon D (2007) Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:14

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nordin M et al (2008) Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(4 Suppl):S101–S122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pollard B et al (2009) Measuring the ICF components of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction: an item analysis using classical test theory and item response theory. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:41

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell IT (2001) Extending the Aberdeen Back Pain Scale to include the whole spine: a set of outcome measures for the neck, upper and lower back. Pain 94(3):261–274

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bolton JE (2004) Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine 29(21):2410–2417 (discussion 2418)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    BenDebba M et al (2002) Cervical spine outcomes questionnaire: its development and psychometric properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(19):2116–2123 (discussion 2124)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fielding R, Li J (1997) A validation of the concept of current perceived health and the Current Perceived Health-42 (CPH-42) questionnaire. Qual Life Res 6(1):35–42

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14(7):409–415

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gilson BS et al (1975) The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65(12):1304–1310

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Willis C et al (2004) Reproducibility and responsiveness of the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire. Pain 110(3):681–688

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Schmitt MA et al (2013) Content validity of the Dutch version of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire. Man Ther [Epub ahead of print]

  17. 17.

    Verhoef J et al (2007) Effectiveness of the introduction of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based rehabilitation tool in multidisciplinary team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 57(2):240–248

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Verhoeven AC, Boers M, van der Liden S (2000) Validity of the MACTAR questionnaire as a functional index in a rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial. The McMaster Toronto Arthritis. J Rheumatol 27(12):2801–2809

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cieza A et al (2002) Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 34(5):205–210

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Elwyn G et al (2003) Developing a measure of patient access to primary care: the access response index (AROS). J Eval Clin Pract 9(1):33–37

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sterling M, Kenardy J (2008) Physical and psychological aspects of whiplash: important considerations for primary care assessment. Man Ther 13(2):93–102

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Soderlund A, Lindberg P (1999) Long-term functional and psychological problems in whiplash associated disorders. Int J Rehabil Res 22(2):77–84

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kaale BR et al (2005) Whiplash-associated disorders impairment rating: neck disability index score according to severity of MRI findings of ligaments and membranes in the upper cervical spine. J Neurotrauma 22(4):466–475

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Schmitt MA et al (2009) The Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire cross-cultural adaptation into Dutch and evaluation of its psychometric properties in a population with subacute and chronic whiplash associated disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(23):2551–2561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Jordan A et al (1998) The Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 21(8):520–527

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors state no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten A. Schmitt.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Concept version of the whiplash activity and participation list (WAL)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmitt, M.A., Stenneberg, M.S., Schrama, P.P.M. et al. Measurement of clinically relevant functional health perceptions in patients with whiplash-associated disorders: the development of the whiplash specific activity and participation list (WAL). Eur Spine J 22, 2097–2104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2831-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Whiplash injury
  • Questionnaire
  • Development
  • Activity and participation
  • ICF