Self-reported disability according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set: Test-retest agreement and reliability
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Low Back Pain Core Set (LBP-CS) has been proposed as a tool to facilitate the description and measurement of chronic low back pain (CLBP) related disability. Patient ratings of ICF categories may serve as a practical and effective method for acquiring patient input on activity limitations and participation restrictions.
To investigate the test-retest agreement and reliability of patient ratings of activity and participation according to the LBP-CS.
A cross-sectional repeated-measures questionnaire study was undertaken with thirty-one medically stable adults with CLBP who presented for treatment at two public Australian hospitals. Participants completed the LBP-CS Self-Report Checklist (LBP-CS-SRC) on two occasions (mean = 12.5 (SD = 4.5) days between administrations). The LBP-CS-SRC permits patients to self-rate their functioning according to the LBP-CS activity and participation categories and enables the derivation of activity limitation and participation restriction scales.
Patient ratings of individual LBP-CS categories generally exhibited good - excellent test-retest agreement (percentage exact agreement: 74.19-100.00%) and reliability (kappa: 0.53-1.00). The test-retest reliability coefficients of the LBP-CS-SRC activity (ICC = 0.94) and participation (ICC = 0.90) scales were excellent. The minimum detectable change values for the activity and participation scales were 8.11 and 15.26, respectively.
This study is the first to demonstrate that patients can provide reliable ratings of functioning using the LBP-CS. The LBP-CS-SRC was shown to be acceptably reliable and precise to support understanding of patients' perspectives on disability in rehabilitation practice and research.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Disability and Health Journal
#754
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,043
of 421,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disability and Health Journal
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
