Comparison of the Functional Rating Index and the 18-Item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: Responsiveness and Reliability

Abstract

The Functional Rating Index seems preferable to the 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in clinical trials and clinical practice.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Simplified Chinese Version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

“…44 A comparative study 34 of the 24-item version with both the 18-and 23-item versions showed equivalent sensitivity, reliability, and possibility of refl ecting the disability; thus, the original 24-item RMDQ was recommended. Chansirinukor et al 45 found that the RMDQ-18 was less responsive and reliable than the Functional Rating Index, and ascribed this to reduction of reliability and loss of information with the use of a yes/no response option suggested by Streiner and Norman. 46 The original version of the RMDQ was initially developed to assess disability secondary to axial LBP, but we still use the 24-item RMDQ for patients who have radiating leg pain.…”

Work and Family Support Systems and the Prevalence of Lower Back Problems in a South African Steel Industry

“…The FRI score was calculated as follows: (total score/40) × 100%. The FRI is known for its reliability, validity, and responsiveness and recently found preferable to the well-known 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in clinical trials and practice [29]. A FRI of ≥30% perceived disability was used in the analyses as a stringent definition for LBP, and the mere presence of back pain at the time, was used as an inclusive definition to record cases of LBP.…”

Erratum to: Prevalence of sleep disturbance in patients with low back pain

“…The mean (SD) total score of RMDQ was 10.8 (5.7); most participants had persistent LBP (73.1% of the total sample), and the mean (SD) pain score on a 0-10 NRS was 6.1 (2.1) ( Table 2). As three studies [23][24][25] did not include a question on pain intensity, relationships between pain intensity and sleep disturbance were examined for a sub-group of 1,511 patients from 11 studies. The process of data extraction is shown in Fig.…”

“…Individual patient data were extracted from 13 studies previously conducted by the authors or their colleagues between 2001 and 2009 [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they contained the ''I sleep less well because of my back'' item of the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).…”