Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine logoLink to Journal of Chiropractic Medicine
. 2005;4(3):113–134. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60121-9

Subjective outcome assessments for cervical spine pathology: A narrative review

Diane N Resnick a,*
PMCID: PMC2647040  PMID: 19674654

Abstract

Background

Subjective outcome assessment instruments may be used to determine whether changes occur as a result of a particular treatment intervention. Since 1991, 11 outcome assessment instruments either specific to or validated for use with cervical spine pathologies have been developed and their psychometric properties critically assessed. Though a systematic review of this subject was published in 2002, it included an analysis of only 5 measures available at that time.

Objective

To present a description of each of the 11 measures and briefly compare their psychometric properties, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change.

Methods

Computer-based searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL were performed to capture all data relevant to the eleven outcome assessment tools currently available.

Results

Data regarding descriptions, reliability and validity of 11 outcome measures were found and collated.

Conclusion

The choice of which outcome measurement to use becomes a matter of preference based on the particular patient population each clinician treats, the ease of use for the patient and ease of scoring for the clinician, and the domains that are most relevant to a particular patient.

Key Indexing Terms: Neck Pain, Outcome Mssessment, Questionnaires, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Cervical Spine

Footnotes

Sources of Support: No funds were received for the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  • 1.Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey: the prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine. 1998;23:1689–1698. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808010-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mäkelä M, Heliövaara M, Sievers K. Prevalence, determinants, and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:1356–1367. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Barry M, Jenner JR. Pain in neck, shoulder and arm. Br Med J. 1995;310:183–186. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gross AR, Hondras MA, Aker PD. Manual therapy for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Library [CD-ROM] 2000;2 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hallgern RC, Greenman PE, Rechtien JJ. Atrophy of suboccipital muscles in patients with chronic pain: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1995;12:1032–1039. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Davis CK. The federal role in changing health care financing. Part 1: national programs and health financing problems. Nurs Econ. 1983;1:10–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mowinski Jennings B, Staggers N. The language of outcomes. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1999;3:59–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Roper WL, Hackbarth GM. Commentary. HCFA's agenda for promoting high-quality care. Health Affairs. 1988;1:91–98. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.7.1.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wennberg JE. Improving the medical decision-making process. Health Aff. 1988;7:99–106. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.7.1.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hutchinson A, McColl E, Christie M, Riccalton C. Health outcomes for primary and out-patient care: an editorial overview. In: Hutchinson A, editor. Health outcome measures in primary and outpatient care. Harwood Academic Publishers; The Netherlands: 1996. p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nelson E, Wasson J, Kirk J. Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:55S–69S. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9681(87)80033-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000;25:3100–3103. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brian JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability index. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.BenDebba M, Heller J, Ducker TB, Eisinger JM. Cervical spine outcomes questionnaire. Its development and psychometric properties. Spine. 2002;27:2116–2124. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000025729.35559.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217–S232. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther. 1998;78:951–963. doi: 10.1093/ptj/78.9.951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331–338. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.27.5.331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bolton JE, Breen AC. The Bournemouth questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I: psychometric properties in back pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:503–510. doi: 10.1016/s0161-4754(99)70001-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nagi SZ. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman MB, editor. Sociology and rehabilitation. American Sociological Association; Washington, DC: 1965. pp. 100–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hansen DT, Mior S, Mootz RD. Why outcomes? Why now? In: Yeomans SG, editor. The clinical application of outcomes assessment. Appleton & Lange; Stamford, CT: 2000. pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Br J Med. 1997;314:572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Keating JC. Toward a philosophy of the science of chiropractic. a primer for clinicians. Stockton Foundation for Chiropractic Research; Stockton, CA: 1992. p. 130. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wyrwich K, Nienaber N, Tierney W, Wolinsky F. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–478. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;74:359–365. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.4.359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press; New York: 1977. pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bolton JE, Humphreys BK. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a shortform comprehensive outcome measure. II: psychometric properties in neck pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:141–148. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.123333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Feise RJ, Menke MJ. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine. 2001;26:78–86. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200101010-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jordan A, Manniche C, Mosdal C, Hindsberger C. The Copenhagen neck functional disability scale: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:520–527. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Leak AM, Cooper J, Dyer S. The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, devised to measure neck pain and disability. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33:469–474. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/33.5.469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pinfold M, Niere KR, O'Leary EF. Validity and internal consistency of a whiplash-specific disability measure. Spine. 2004;29:263–268. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000107238.15526.4c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Salen BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R. The disability rating index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1423–1434. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90086-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Baird AC, Darden BV. Development of the neck pain and disability scale: item analysis, face, and criterionrelated validity. Spine. 1999;24:1290–1294. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199907010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell IT. Extending the Aberdeen back pain scale to include the whole spine: a set of outcome measures for the neck, upper and lower back. Pain. 2001;94:261–274. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00360-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey S. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction. A systematic review. Spine. 2002;27:515–522. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chiu TT, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Subjective health measure used on Chinese patients with neck pain in Hong Kong. Spine. 2001;26:1884–1889. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200109010-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gonzalez T, Balsa A, Sainz de Murieta J. Spanish version of the Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire: reliability and validity. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2001;19:41–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Helmerson Ackelman B, Lindgren U. Validity and reliability of a modified version of the neck disability index. J Rehab Med. 2002;34:284–287. doi: 10.1080/165019702760390383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wlodyka-Demaille S, Poiraudeau S, Catanzariti JF. French translation and validation of 3 functional disability scales for neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:376–382. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.30623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stratford P, Solomon P, Binkley J. Sensitivity of sickness impact profile items to measure change over time in a low-back pain patient group. Spine. 1993;18:1723–1727. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199310000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Melzak R, Torgerson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology. 1971;34:50–59. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197101000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Wardlaw D, Russell IT. Developing a valid and reliable measure of health outcome for patients with low back pain. Spine. 1994;19:1887–1896. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199409000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Melzak R. The McGill pain questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975;1:275–299. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hains F, Waalen J, Mior S. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:75–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hoving JL, O'Leary EF, Niere KR. Validity of the neck disability index, Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, and problem elicitation technique for measuring disability associated with whiplashassociated disorders. Pain. 2003;102:273–281. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00406-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Goolkasian P, Wheeler AH, Gretz SS. The neck pain and disability scale: test-retest reliability and construct validity. Clin J Pain. 2002;18:245–250. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200207000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sobel JB, Sollenberger P, Robinson R. Cervical nonorganic signs: a new clinical tool to assess abnormal illness behavior in neck pain patients: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:170–175. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90136-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE. Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheum. 2001;28:431–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Chiropractic Medicine are provided here courtesy of National University of Health Sciences

RESOURCES