Abstract
Introduction: The commonly advocated tools for self report outcome measurement of cervical disability are the NDI (Neck Disability Index) and FRI (Functional Rater Index). They have established psychometric properties but their clinical utility is criticised due to time requirements and errors in both completion and scoring. The Spinal Disability Questionnaire (SDQ) was developed to improve these characteristics. Methods: Subjects from a sample of convenience were recruited through four physiotherapy practices. Inclusion criteria were neck pain with or without limb pain or headache and there was no duration limit (n = 71). Development methodology, peer review and sample testing gave logic and content validity while head-to-head Practitioner, Coolum. Centre for Heatlhy Activities, Sport and Exercise (CHASE), University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Introduction: The commonly advocated tools for self report outcome measurement of cervical disability are the NDI (Neck Disability Index) and FRI (Functional Rater Index). They have established psychometric properties but their clinical utility is criticised due to time requirements and errors in both completion and scoring. The Spinal Disability Questionnaire (SDQ) was developed to improve these characteristics. Methods: Subjects from a sample of convenience were recruited through four physiotherapy practices. Inclusion criteria were neck pain with or without limb pain or headache and there was no duration limit (n = 71). Development methodology, peer review and sample testing gave logic and content validity while head-to-head comparison provided construct and criterion validity. Subgroups provided test-retest reliability, responsiveness and change score through prospective data analysis (n = 46). Results: Pilot data demonstrated sound psychometric properties for the SDQ with test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89) and Internal Consistency (CA = 0.89). Error range (MDC90 = 16.3%) and responsiveness (SRM = 1.132) were both preferable to the concurrent scores of the FRI and NDI and criterion correlation was established between all tools (r > 0.75). The SDQ's practical clinical utility and characteristics of completion and scoring times and reduced user error were preferable as was distribution range. Conclusions: The SDQ is a viable outcome tool for determination of cervical disability in a clinical setting. IT has preferred practical characteristics to both the NDI and FRI with improved clinical utility and psychometric properties. These findings indicate a further formal investigative study on a larger, significant population sample, is warranted.