4.5 Article

Development of a Short Form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Journal

SPINE
Volume 36, Issue 22, Pages 1891-1895

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f8f775

Keywords

back pain; early identification; Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire; prediction of disability; psychological factors; screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Design. A longitudinal design where the questionnaire was completed at a pretest and predictive ability evaluated with a 1-year follow-up. A second sample was employed to provide a replication. Objective. The aim of the study was to validate a short form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (MSPQ). Summary of Background Data. Several studies demonstrate the research and clinical utility of the MSPQ. Calls have been made for a shorter form that requires less time in administering. Methods. The short version was constructed by taking two items from each of the five factors shown to have predictive power. It was then tested against the long form in two samples of people with musculoskeletal pain where one reflects an occupational health care population (N = 324) and the other a primary care population (N = 183) thus providing a built-in replication. All participants completed the MSPQ and were then followed over the course of a year to evaluate disability as measured by sick leave. Results. The correlation between the short and long forms was 0.91. The receiver operating characteristic curve was nearly identical for the long and short versions of the questionnaire (e. g., primary care sample: 0.84 vs. 0.81; occupational sample: 0.72 vs. 0.70). Of those who developed disability, a cutoff of 50 on the short version identified 85% in the occupational and 83% in the primary care samples which was nearly as good as the full version. Conclusion. The short form of the MSPQ is appropriate for clinical and research purposes, since it is nearly as accurate as the longer version.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available