European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 2741–2749 | Cite as

Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain

  • R. Hilfiker
  • I. A. Knutti
  • B. Raval-Roland
  • G. Rivier
  • G. Crombez
  • Emmanuelle OpsommerEmail author
Original Article



The assessment of a broad range of biopsychosocial aspects is important in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) for the prediction of outcome as well as for evaluation. The objective of this study was to test the responsiveness, construct validity and predictive value of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ) compared to other instruments widely used to assess biopsychosocial aspects in patients with CLBP.


111 patients with CLBP admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation completed a set of questionnaires on biopsychosocial aspects at baseline and at discharge. Ninety-eight patients responded at three months for an assessment of the return to work status. Responsiveness of the OMPSQ, the ability to detect change in the construct of interest, was investigated by a set of hypotheses on correlations with widely used questionnaires. We tested the hypothesis that the changes in the OMPSQ would vary along with the responses in the Patient’s Global Impression of Change. Prediction of disability at discharge, work status at three months and time to return to work was evaluated with linear, logistic and cox regression models.


The OMPSQ showed good predictive values for disability and return to work and construct validity of the instrument was corroborated. Seventy-nine percent of our hypotheses for responsiveness could be confirmed, with the OMPSQ showing the second highest change during the rehabilitation.


The OMPSQ can also be applied in patients with CLBP, but for the assessment of change in psychosocial variables one should add specific questionnaires.


Questionnaires Psychometrics Low back pain, prognosis Rehabilitation 



The study was performed at the Rehabilitation Centre, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Service de réadaptation de l’appareil locomoteur, Sion, Switzerland. We would like to thank our participants for their time and cooperation. We also thank Mrs Virginie Roten who helped in part for carry out the data collection and Dr. Cyrille Burrus who was responsible for the eligibility of the participants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


The study was in part supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. SNF 13DPD6_132178/1—E. Opsommer) and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland//HES-SO (RéSaR 07-10_Sagex_23725—E. Opsommer).

Supplementary material

586_2016_4635_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wieser S, Horisberger B, Schmidhauser S, Eisenring C, Brugger U, Ruckstuhl A, Dietrich J, Mannion AF, Elfering A, Tamcan O, Muller U (2011) Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005. Eur J Health Econ 12:455–467. doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0258-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C (2012) Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379:482–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, Cleeland C, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Galer BS, Hewitt DJ, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Witter J (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106:337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linton SJ, Hallden K (1998) Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain 14:209–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linton SJ, Boersma K (2003) Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: the predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. Clin J Pain 19:80–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nonclercq O, Berquin A (2012) Predicting chronicity in acute back pain: validation of a French translation of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 55:263–278. doi: 10.1016/ CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Opsommer E, Hilfiker R, Raval-Roland B, Crombez G, Rivier G (2013) Test-retest reliability of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire and the situational pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain. Swiss Med Weekly 143:w13903. doi: 10.4414/smw.2013.13903 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ACC (2009) New Zealand acute low back pain guide, incorporation the guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain Accessed 29.05.2015
  9. 9.
    New South Wales WorkCover (2008) Overview Improving outcomes: integrated, active management of workers with soft tissue injury. Accessed 29.05.2015
  10. 10.
    New South Wales WorkCover (2009) The management of acute/subacute soft tissue injuries to the low back: evidence update and recommendations for clinical practice. Accessed 29.05.2015
  11. 11.
    Toward Optimized Practice Program (2011) Guideline for the Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain. Accessed 04.06.2015
  12. 12.
    Bergström G, Hagberg J, Busch H, Jensen I, Bjorklund C (2014) Prediction of sickness absenteeism, disability pension and sickness presenteeism among employees with back pain. J Occup Rehabil 24:278–286. doi: 10.1007/s10926-013-9454-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogler D, Paillex R, Norberg M, de Goumoens P, Cabri J (2008) Cross-cultural validation of the Oswestry disability index in French. Annales de readaptation et de medecine physique: revue scientifique de la Societe francaise de reeducation fonctionnelle de readaptation et de medecine physique 51:379–385. doi: 10.1016/j.annrmp.2008.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grisart J, Masquelier E (2005) Evaluation de l’indice de kinésiophobie. Echelle Tampa (TSK-CF). Accessed 13.11.2014 2014
  15. 15.
    Chaory K, Fayad F, Rannou F, Lefevre-Colau MM, Fermanian J, Revel M, Poiraudeau S (2004) Validation of the French version of the fear avoidance belief questionnaire. Spine 29:908–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irachabal S, Koleck M, Rascle N, Bruchon-Schweitzer M (2008) Stratégies de coping des patients douloureux: adaptation française du coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ-F). Encephale 34:47–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lépine J (1996) L’échelle HAD (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). In: Guelfi J (ed) L’évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie. Editions Médicales Pierre Fabre, Boulogne, pp 367–374Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perneger TV, Combescure C, Courvoisier DS (2010) General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 13:631–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00727.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen MP, Karoly P (2001) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Melzack R, Turk D (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 15–34Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guy W (1976) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. US GovernmentPrinting Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21. (2007) Situational Pain Scale (SPS): a measure of the mental representation of pain intensity in imaginary painful situations. Accessed 04.06.2015 2015
  22. 22.
    Decruynaere C (2007) The measure of pain by self-report: use of Rasch analysis. [PhD thesis dissertation]. Université catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen J (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Aspects Treat Care Rehabil 19:539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wideman TH, Hill JC, Main CJ, Lewis M, Sullivan MJ, Hay EM (2012) Comparing the responsiveness of a brief, multidimensional risk screening tool for back pain to its unidimensional reference standards: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Pain 153:2182–2191. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmidt CO, Kohlmann T, Pfingsten M, Lindena G, Marnitz U, Pfeifer K, Chenot JF (2016) Construct and predictive validity of the German Orebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 25:325–332. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4196-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hilfiker
    • 1
  • I. A. Knutti
    • 2
  • B. Raval-Roland
    • 2
  • G. Rivier
    • 3
  • G. Crombez
    • 4
  • Emmanuelle Opsommer
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Health SciencesUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO) Valais-WallisSionSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO)School of Health Sciences (HESAV)LausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Clinique Romande de RéadaptationSionSwitzerland
  4. 4.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations