Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine fit of the original 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and three short-form versions to a Rasch model with particular attention to targeting of item difficulty and to differential item functioning.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 140 people with low back pain seeking physiotherapy treatment. Data were analysed using a dichotomous Rasch model.

Results

All versions showed adequate overall data fit to the Rasch model, with few misfitting items. Person separation was around 0.85 for all versions. Item 5 (use a handrail to get upstairs) showed differential item functioning by age. Targeting of persons of high ability was poor and short-form versions also had poor targeting of persons of low ability. Items of similar difficulty clustered in the centre of the logit scale.

Conclusion

Although the Roland data fit the Rasch model, there were insufficient items of higher difficulty to sufficiently evaluate disability in persons with mild disability. Short-form versions also lacked items of lower difficulty.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Rumm Laboratory Pty. Ltd. (2003) 14 Dodonaea Court, Duncraig, Western Australia http://www.rummlab.com.

References

  1. Grotle, M., Brox, J. I., & Vollestad, N. K. (2005). Functional status and disability questionnaires: What do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine, 30(1), 130–140. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000163888.19478.49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roland, M., & Morris, R. (1983). A study of the natural history of back pain. Part i: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine, 8(2), 141–144. doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Haigh, R., Tennant, A., Biering, S. F., Grimby, G., Marincek, C., Phillips, S., et al. (2001). The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33(6), 273–278. doi:10.1080/165019701753236464.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Torenbeek, M., Caulfield, B., Garrett, M., & Van Harten, W. (2001). Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: First results of the across project. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale de Recherches de Readaptation, 24(2), 95–101. doi:10.1097/00004356-200106000-00002.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R. A., Carter, W. B., & Gilson, B. S. (1981). The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19(8), 787–805. doi:10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Patrick, D. L., Deyo, R. A., Atlas, S. J., Singer, D. E., Chapin, A., & Keller, R. B. (1995). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine, 20(17), 1899–1908. discussion 1909. doi:10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davidson, M., & Keating, J. L. (2002). A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness. Physical Therapy, 82(1), 8–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Underwood, M. R., Barnett, A. G., & Vickers, M. R. (1999). Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine, 24(11), 1104–1112. doi:10.1097/00007632-199906010-00010.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J., Solomon, P., Finch, E., Gill, C., & Moreland, J. (1996). Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Physical Therapy, 76(4), 359–365. discussion 366–358.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ostelo, R. W. J. G., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2005). Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Rheumatology, 19(4), 593–607. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., Riddle, D. L., & Guyatt, G. H. (1998). Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1. Physical Therapy, 78(11), 1186–1196.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1997). Measurement properties of the rm-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine, 22(20), 2416–2421. doi:10.1097/00007632-199710150-00018.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams, R. M., & Myers, A. M. (2001). Support for a shortened Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with acute low back pain. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada, 53(1), 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stroud, M. W., McKnight, P. E., & Jensen, M. P. (2004). Assessment of self-reported physical activity in patients with chronic pain: Development of an abbreviated Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Journal of Pain, 5(5), 257–263. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2004.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Atlas, S. J., Deyo, R. A., van den Ancker, M., Singer, D. E., Keller, R. B., & Patrick, D. L. (2003). The Maine-Seattle Back Questionnaire: A 12-item disability questionnaire for evaluating patients with lumbar sciatica or stenosis: Results of a derivation and validation cohort analysis. Spine, 28(16), 1869–1876. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000083205.82614.01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., Crane, P. K., Deyo, R. A., Johnson, K. L., & Amtmann, D. (2008). Letting the cat out of the bag: Comparing computer adaptive tests and an 11-item short form of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 33(12), 1378–1383. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181732acb.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pengel, L. H., Refshauge, K. M., & Maher, C. G. (2004). Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine, 29(8), 879–883. doi:10.1097/00007632-200404150-00011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ostelo, R. W., de Vet, H. C., Knol, D. L., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2004). 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(3), 268–276. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garratt, A. M., In collaboration with the United Kingdom Back Pain Excercise and Manipulation Trial (2003). Rasch analysis of the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 28(1), 79–84. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00019.

  20. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Küçükdeveci, A. A., Tennant, A., Elhan, A. H., & Niyazoglu, H. (2001). Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine, 26(24), 2738–2743. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112150-00024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 711–717. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(96)00016-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II—validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 204–234.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliabilty and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4), 472.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2006). Unidimensionality matters! (a tale to two smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(1), 1048–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Megan Davidson

Authors
  1. Megan Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan Davidson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davidson, M. Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 18, 473–481 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9456-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9456-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation