Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Neck Disability Index in patients with acute neck pain in general practice

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prospective cohort study with a 1 week follow-up. To examine the reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with acute neck pain in general practice. An increasing number of studies on treatment options is published in which the NDI is used. Reports of the ability of the NDI to detect change over time, often called responsiveness, however have not yet been published. At baseline 187 patients (119 women, 68 men) were included. They completed a questionnaire on demographic variables, self-reported cause of their complaints and the NDI. After 1 week, 86 patients were sent the NDI again together with the perceived recovery scale which was used as our external criterion. The scale ranged from 1 (complete recovery) to 7 (complaints are worse than ever). Response rate was 93%. Test–retest scores on reliability were good (ICC = 0.90). A Bland and Altman plot and a graph of total sum score differences showed no visible tendency towards unequal spreading of the data. For patients that reported on the perceived recovery scale that they were “stable” we found a responsiveness ratio of 1.82. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.60 what resulted in a minimal detectable change (MDC) of 1.66. The NDI has shown to be a reliable and responsive instrument in patients with acute neck pain in general practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackelman BH, Lindgren U (2002) Validity and reliability of a modified version of the Neck Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 34:284–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ariēns GAM, Borghouts JAJ, Koes BW (1999) Neck pain. Crombie IK, Epidemiology of pain, IASP Press, Seattle pp 235–255

  3. Beurskens AJHM, Vet de HCW, Kõke AJA (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boehm H, Greiner-Perth R, El-Sahir H et al (2003) A new minimally invasive posterior approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathie and myelopathy: surgical technique and preliminary results. Eur Spine J 12:268–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bogduk N (1999) The neck. Baillières Clin Rheumatol 13:261–285

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boninger ML, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG et al (2003) Investigating neck pain in wheelchair users. Am J Phys Med Rehab 82:197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borghouts JAJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1998) The clinical course of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain 77:1–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bot SDM, Terwee CB, Windt van der DAWM et al (2004) Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 63:335–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bovim G, Schrader H, Sand T. (1994) Neck pain in the general population. Spine 19:1307–1309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bunketorp L, Nordholm L, Carlsson J (2002) A descriptive analysis of disorders in patients 17 years following motor vehicle accidents. Eur Spine J 11:227–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiu TTW, Lam TH, Hedley AJ (2001) Subjective health measures used on Chinese patients with neck pain in Hong Kong. Spine 26:1884–1889

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (1998) The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 23:1689–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donk van der J, Schouten JSAG, Passchier J et al (1991) The associations of neck pain with radiological abnormalities of the cervical spine and personality traits in a general population. J Rheumatol 118:1884–1889

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guez M, Hildingsson C, Nilsson M et al (2002) The prevalence of neck pain. A population based study from northern Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 73:455–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guez M, Hildingsson C, Stegmayr B et al (2003) Chronic neck pain of traumatic and non-traumatic origin. A population based study. Acta Orthop Scand 74:576–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R (1992) Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 45:1341–1345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman G (1987) Measuring change over time: the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 40:171–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hains F, Waalen J, Mior S (1998) Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 21:75–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoving JL, O’Leary EF, Niere KR et al 2003) Validity of the neck disability index, Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, and problem elicitation technique for measuring disability associated with whiplash-associated disorders. Pain 102:273–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kjellman G, Skargren E, Oberg B (2002) Prognostic factors for perceived pain and function at one-year follow-up in primary care patients with neck pain. Disabil Rehabil 24:364–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Koes BW, Bouter LM, van Mameren H et al (1994) A randomized trial of manual therapy and physiotherapy for persistent back and neck complaints: subgroup analysis and relationship between outcome measures. J Manipulative Phys Ther 16:211–219

    Google Scholar 

  22. Köke AJA, Heuts PHTG, Vlayen JWS et al (1996) Neck Disability Index. Pijn Kennis Centrum Maastricht. Meetinstrumenten chronische pijn. Maastricht pp 52–54

  23. Marchiori DM, Henderson CNR (1996) A cross-sectional study correlating cervical radiographic degenerative findings to pain and disability. Spine 21:2747–2752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McHorney CA, Ware JR jr. (1995) Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the medical outcomes study short-form 36-item health survey. Med Care 33:15–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Miettinen T, Leino E, Airaksinen O et al 2004) The possibility to use simple validated questionnaires to predict long-term health problems after whiplash injury. Spine 29:E47-E51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ostello RWJG, de Vet HCW (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ostello RWJG, de Vet HCW, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA (2004) 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 57:268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L et al (2003) Predictive factors for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 12:274–280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Peterson C, Bolton J, Wood AR et al (2003) A cross-sectional study correlating degeneration of the cervical spine with disability and pain in United Kingdom patients. Spine 28:129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey T et al (2002) Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain and dysfunction. A systematic review. Spine 27:515–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Riddle DL, Stratford PW (1998) Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther 78:951–963

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vernon HT, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative PhysTher 14:407–415

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vet de HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ (2001) Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Heath Care 17:479–487

    Google Scholar 

  34. Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM (1998) The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27:331–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Windt van der DAWM, Heijden van der GJMG, Winter de AF, Koes BW et al (1998) The responsiveness of the shoulder questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis 57:82–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Cees J. Vos, Arianne P. Verhagen & Bart W. Koes

Authors
  1. Cees J. Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arianne P. Verhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bart W. Koes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cees J. Vos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vos, C.J., Verhagen, A.P. & Koes, B.W. 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, 1729–1736 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0119-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0119-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation