The Experts below are selected from a list of 5922 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Howard Vernon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Neck Disability Index
PsycTESTS Dataset, 2018Co-Authors: Howard Vernon, Silvano MiorAbstract:Howard Vernon developed the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in 1989. The NDI was developed as a modification of the Oswestry low back pain Disability Index with the permission of the original author (J. Fairbank, 1980). In 1991, Vernon and Mior published the results of a study of reliability and validity in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiologic Therapeutics. Since then, approximately ten articles have appeared in the Indexed literature on the NDI. All of these studies have confirmed the original reports of a high level of reliability and validity. We know that the NDI consists of one factor – physical Disability – although NDI scores correlate well with the SF-36 mental component scores as well. We know that the minimum detectable score and the minimal clinically important difference amounts to the same figure – 5 NDI points.
-
cross cultural adaptation validity and reliability of the hausa version of the Neck Disability Index questionnaire
International journal of therapy and rehabilitation, 2016Co-Authors: Bashir Kaka, Howard Vernon, Omoyemi O Ogwumike, Ade F Adeniyi, Samuel Olusegun OgunladeAbstract:Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt initiated psychometric tests of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire into Hausa language. The prevalence of Neck conditions among Hausa patients in Northern Nigeria necessitates the use of the NDI questionnaire. The fact that there was no Hausa version of this instrument has limited its use, hence there is a need for its translation into the Hausa language. Methods: The English version of the NDI questionnaire was translated into Hausa language through a forward and backward translation process. Sixty-two patients were selected for validation of the questionnaire using a purposive sampling technique. The original English version (NDI) and the Hausa version (NDI-H) were administered to the patients and re-administered within the space of one week to ensure validation. Psychometric testing was done to ascertain reliability and construct validity. Findings: The Hausa version of the NDI showed good internal consistency...
-
the Neck Disability Index russian language version ndi ru a study of validity and reliability
Spine, 2015Co-Authors: M A Bakhtadze, Howard Vernon, Olga B Zakharova, Kirill O Kuzminov, Dmitry A BolotovAbstract:STUDY DESIGN Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing. OBJECTIVE To perform a validated Russian translation and then to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Russian language version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-RU). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Neck pain is highly prevalent and can greatly affect daily activity. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is the most frequently used scale for self-rating of Disability due to Neck pain. Its translated versions are applied in many countries. However, the Russian language version of the NDI has not been developed yet. METHODS Cross-cultural adaptation of the NDI-RU was performed according to established guidelines. Then, the NDI-RU was evaluated for content validity, concurrent criterion validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and minimum detectable change. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-two patients took part in the study in total: 109 in validity (39.5 ± 10 yr), 123 in reliability (38.4 ± 11 yr; 80 in the test-retest phase). A culturally valid translation was achieved. NDI-RU total scores were distributed normally. Floor/ceiling effects were absent. Good values of Cronbach α were obtained for each item (from 0.80 to 0.84) and for the total NDI-RU (0.83). A 2-factor solution was found for the NDI-RU. The average interitem correlation coefficient was 0.53. Intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.65 to 0.92 for different items and 0.91 for the total NDI-RU. Moderate correlation (Spearman rs = 0.62; P < 0.05) was found between the NDI-RU total score and graphic rating scalepain score. Completion of the NDI-RU takes 3.6 ± 1 minutes. CONCLUSION The development of a Russian language version of the Neck Disability Index resulted in a valid, reliable instrument that can be used both in clinical practice and scientific investigations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 1.
-
responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Neck Disability Index and the Neck pain Disability scale in italian subjects with chronic Neck pain
European Spine Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Emilia Ambrosini, Roberto Brunati, Barbara Rocca, Calogero Foti, Simona FerranteAbstract:To evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) for the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain Disability Scale (NPDS) as well as which questionnaire was the most responsive in subjects with chronic Neck pain (NP). At the beginning and end of an 8-week rehabilitation programme, 200 patients completed the NDI and NPDS. After the programme, the global perceived effect (GPE) was also evaluated and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was calculated by distribution [effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves; correlations between change scores of NPDS and NDI, and GPE). ROC curves were also used to compute the best cutoff levels between improved and stable subjects (MICs). The ES was 0.66 and 0.73, and the SRM was 1.09–1.26 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively. The ROC analyses revealed AUCs of 0.96 and 0.91 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively; the MICs were 7-percentage points for the NDI (sensitivity: 98 %; specificity: 81 %) and 10 for NPDS (93; 83 %), showing equivalent responsiveness properties. Baseline NPDS scores did not affect MIC estimate for the NPDS, while, for the NDI, higher MICs were found for patients with worst Disability levels. Correlations between change scores of the NDI and NPDS and GPE were, respectively, high (0.71) and moderate (0.59). The Italian NDI and NPDS were equally sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with chronic NP undergoing rehabilitation. We recommend taking the MICs into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.
-
cultural adaptation reliability and validity of Neck Disability Index in indian rural population a marathi version study
Spine, 2015Co-Authors: Sibi Daniel Joseph, Bharati Bellare, Howard VernonAbstract:STUDY DESIGN A cross-sectional study to develop a cultural adaptation of the Marathi-Neck Disability Index (NDI) and to investigate its validity and reliability. OBJECTIVE To conduct a study concerning the cultural adaptation of the NDI and investigate the validity and reliability of its Marathi version in patients with Neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The NDI is a reliable instrument for evaluating self-rated Disability due to Neck pain, but there is no published Marathi version and also it has not been tested on a rural population yet. Successful linguistic and cultural translation may allow appropriate cross-cultural comparison for clinical and laboratory research analysis, even in the rural parts of the Maharashtra state of India, where English is not the language of communication. METHODS Eighty-one patients having Neck pain for at least 3 months were included in the study. The NDI and visual analogue scale for pain were completed by all subjects. Test-retest reliability was determined by using intraclass correlation coefficient and Pearson correlation analysis. For the determination of construct validity, the relation between the NDI and visual analogue scale was examined by Pearson correlation analysis. RESULTS Intraclass correlation coefficient score for test-retest reliability was 0.95 and the Cronbach α was 0.97. For construct-related validity the correlation of the NDI-Marathi version was found to be 0.95 (P < 0.0001). These results showed that the construct validity of the Marathi version of the NDI was excellent. CONCLUSION The results suggest that the Marathi version of the NDI that is validated in this study is an easy to comprehend, reliable, and valid instrument for the measurement for the limitation of activities of daily living and pain caused by Neck disorders in the Marathi-speaking population.
Markus Melloh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
confirmatory factor analysis of the Neck Disability Index comparing patients with whiplash associated disorders to a control group with non specific Neck pain
European Spine Journal, 2016Co-Authors: Charles Philip Gabel, Markus Melloh, Antonio Cuestavargas, Jason W Osborne, Sebastian M Barr, Stephanie Winkeljohn BlackAbstract:Abstract Purpose The Neck Disability Index (NDI) as a 10-item patient reported outcome (PRO) measure is the most commonly used whiplash associated disorders (WAD) assessment tool. However, statistical rigor and factor structure are not definitive. To date, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has not examined whether the factor structure generalizes across different groups (e.g., WAD versus non-WAD). This study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the NDI in these population groups. Methods This study used CFA to analyze NDI baseline-data for WAD (n = 804; 69 % females) and non-WAD (n = 963; 67 % females), each for the full sample and separate genders. Invariance analyses examined the NDI structure across the four groups. Results Across both populations and gender subgroups the one-factor solutions consistently showed better model fit over two-factor solutions. The NDI was best characterized as one-dimensional and invariant across multiple sub-groups. Conclusion The NDI remains a valid PRO in WAD populations that provides acceptable measurement of Neck status that is appropriate for basic functional assessment across genders. However, it is recommended that both clinicians and researchers initiate the transition toward more rigorous and less ambiguous PRO measurement tools for WAD patients and research. This future graduated movement toward other PROs should consider both regional PROs and computerized decision support systems, initially measured concurrently with the NDI to establish ways to convert existing scored data prior to their singular use.
-
confirmatory factory analysis of the Neck Disability Index in a general problematic Neck population indicates a one factor model
The Spine Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Charles Philip Gabel, Antonio Cuestavargas, Jason W Osborne, Brendan Burkett, Markus MellohAbstract:BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the Neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of Neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic Neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, Neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic Neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with Neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factormodelshavegoodpsychometricpropertiesacrossboththepooledandsexsubgroups.However,accordingtotheseanalyses,theone-factorsolutionispreferablefrombothastatistical perspectiveandparsimony.Thetwo-factormodelwasclosetosignificantforthemalesubgroup(p!.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of Neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup
-
confirmatory factory analysis of the Neck Disability Index in a general problematic Neck population indicates a one factor model
Faculty of Health, 2014Co-Authors: Charles Philip Gabel, Antonio Cuestavargas, Jason W Osborne, Brendan Burkett, Markus MellohAbstract:BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the Neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of Neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic Neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, Neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic Neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with Neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factor models have good psychometric properties across both the pooled and sex subgroups. However, according to these analyses, the one-factor solution is preferable from both a statistical perspective and parsimony. The two-factor model was close to significant for the male subgroup (p<.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of Neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup and sex-specific populations are warranted.
-
factor structure of the Neck Disability Index
Spine, 2011Co-Authors: Charles Philip Gabel, Markus Melloh, Antonio CuestavargasAbstract:BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the Neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of Neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic Neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, Neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic Neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with Neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factor models have good psychometric properties across both the pooled and sex subgroups. However, according to these analyses, the one-factor solution is preferable from both a statistical perspective and parsimony. The two-factor model was close to significant for the male subgroup (p<.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of Neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup and sex-specific populations are warranted.
Calogero Foti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Neck Disability Index and the Neck pain Disability scale in italian subjects with chronic Neck pain
European Spine Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Emilia Ambrosini, Roberto Brunati, Barbara Rocca, Calogero Foti, Simona FerranteAbstract:To evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) for the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain Disability Scale (NPDS) as well as which questionnaire was the most responsive in subjects with chronic Neck pain (NP). At the beginning and end of an 8-week rehabilitation programme, 200 patients completed the NDI and NPDS. After the programme, the global perceived effect (GPE) was also evaluated and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was calculated by distribution [effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves; correlations between change scores of NPDS and NDI, and GPE). ROC curves were also used to compute the best cutoff levels between improved and stable subjects (MICs). The ES was 0.66 and 0.73, and the SRM was 1.09–1.26 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively. The ROC analyses revealed AUCs of 0.96 and 0.91 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively; the MICs were 7-percentage points for the NDI (sensitivity: 98 %; specificity: 81 %) and 10 for NPDS (93; 83 %), showing equivalent responsiveness properties. Baseline NPDS scores did not affect MIC estimate for the NPDS, while, for the NDI, higher MICs were found for patients with worst Disability levels. Correlations between change scores of the NDI and NPDS and GPE were, respectively, high (0.71) and moderate (0.59). The Italian NDI and NPDS were equally sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with chronic NP undergoing rehabilitation. We recommend taking the MICs into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.
-
development of the italian version of the Neck Disability Index cross cultural adaptation factor analysis reliability validity and sensitivity to change
Spine, 2012Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Barbara Rocca, Simona Ferrante, Fulvio Dal Farra, Calogero FotiAbstract:STUDY DESIGN Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with Neck pain (NP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA More attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for NP. A translated form of the NDI has never been validated in Italian patients with NP. METHODS The NDI-I was developed by forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), construct validity by comparing NDI-I with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical rating scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (Spearman correlation), and sensitivity to change by calculating the smallest detectable change. RESULTS The questionnaire was administered to 101 subjects with chronic NP and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor 10-item solution (explained variance: 56%). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.842) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.846). Construct validity showed a good correlation with Neck Pain and Disability Scale (ρ = 0.687), moderate correlations with the numerical rating scale (ρ = 0.545), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (ρ = 0.422 for the Anxiety score and ρ = 0.546 for the Depression score), and poor correlations with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales (ρ = 0.066 to -0.286). The psychometric analyses of the subscales and total scale were similar. The smallest detectable change of the NDI-I was 3. CONCLUSION The NDI was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.
-
development of the italian version of the Neck Disability Index cross cultural adaptation factor analysis reliability validity and sensitivity to change
Spine, 2012Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Barbara Rocca, Simona Ferrante, Fulvio Dal Farra, Calogero FotiAbstract:STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with Neck pain (NP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: More attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for NP. A translated form of the NDI has never been validated in Italian patients with NP. METHODS: The NDI-I was developed by forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), construct validity by comparing NDI-I with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical rating scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (Spearman correlation), and sensitivity to change by calculating the smallest detectable change. RESULTS: The questionnaire was administered to 101 subjects with chronic NP and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor 10-item solution (explained variance: 56%). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.842) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.846). Construct validity showed a good correlation with Neck Pain and Disability Scale (ρ = 0.687), moderate correlations with the numerical rating scale (ρ = 0.545), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (ρ = 0.422 for the Anxiety score and ρ = 0.546 for the Depression score), and poor correlations with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales (ρ = 0.066 to -0.286). The psychometric analyses of the subscales and total scale were similar. The smallest detectable change of the NDI-I was 3. CONCLUSION: The NDI was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.
Marco Monticone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Neck Disability Index and the Neck pain Disability scale in italian subjects with chronic Neck pain
European Spine Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Emilia Ambrosini, Roberto Brunati, Barbara Rocca, Calogero Foti, Simona FerranteAbstract:To evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) for the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain Disability Scale (NPDS) as well as which questionnaire was the most responsive in subjects with chronic Neck pain (NP). At the beginning and end of an 8-week rehabilitation programme, 200 patients completed the NDI and NPDS. After the programme, the global perceived effect (GPE) was also evaluated and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was calculated by distribution [effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves; correlations between change scores of NPDS and NDI, and GPE). ROC curves were also used to compute the best cutoff levels between improved and stable subjects (MICs). The ES was 0.66 and 0.73, and the SRM was 1.09–1.26 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively. The ROC analyses revealed AUCs of 0.96 and 0.91 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively; the MICs were 7-percentage points for the NDI (sensitivity: 98 %; specificity: 81 %) and 10 for NPDS (93; 83 %), showing equivalent responsiveness properties. Baseline NPDS scores did not affect MIC estimate for the NPDS, while, for the NDI, higher MICs were found for patients with worst Disability levels. Correlations between change scores of the NDI and NPDS and GPE were, respectively, high (0.71) and moderate (0.59). The Italian NDI and NPDS were equally sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with chronic NP undergoing rehabilitation. We recommend taking the MICs into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.
-
development of the italian version of the Neck Disability Index cross cultural adaptation factor analysis reliability validity and sensitivity to change
Spine, 2012Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Barbara Rocca, Simona Ferrante, Fulvio Dal Farra, Calogero FotiAbstract:STUDY DESIGN Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with Neck pain (NP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA More attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for NP. A translated form of the NDI has never been validated in Italian patients with NP. METHODS The NDI-I was developed by forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), construct validity by comparing NDI-I with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical rating scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (Spearman correlation), and sensitivity to change by calculating the smallest detectable change. RESULTS The questionnaire was administered to 101 subjects with chronic NP and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor 10-item solution (explained variance: 56%). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.842) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.846). Construct validity showed a good correlation with Neck Pain and Disability Scale (ρ = 0.687), moderate correlations with the numerical rating scale (ρ = 0.545), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (ρ = 0.422 for the Anxiety score and ρ = 0.546 for the Depression score), and poor correlations with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales (ρ = 0.066 to -0.286). The psychometric analyses of the subscales and total scale were similar. The smallest detectable change of the NDI-I was 3. CONCLUSION The NDI was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.
-
development of the italian version of the Neck Disability Index cross cultural adaptation factor analysis reliability validity and sensitivity to change
Spine, 2012Co-Authors: Marco Monticone, Howard Vernon, Barbara Rocca, Simona Ferrante, Fulvio Dal Farra, Calogero FotiAbstract:STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated and culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-I) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with Neck pain (NP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: More attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for NP. A translated form of the NDI has never been validated in Italian patients with NP. METHODS: The NDI-I was developed by forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee, and a test of the prefinal version to establish its correspondence with the original English version. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation), construct validity by comparing NDI-I with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical rating scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (Spearman correlation), and sensitivity to change by calculating the smallest detectable change. RESULTS: The questionnaire was administered to 101 subjects with chronic NP and proved to be acceptable. Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor 10-item solution (explained variance: 56%). The questionnaire showed good internal consistency (α = 0.842) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation = 0.846). Construct validity showed a good correlation with Neck Pain and Disability Scale (ρ = 0.687), moderate correlations with the numerical rating scale (ρ = 0.545), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (ρ = 0.422 for the Anxiety score and ρ = 0.546 for the Depression score), and poor correlations with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales (ρ = 0.066 to -0.286). The psychometric analyses of the subscales and total scale were similar. The smallest detectable change of the NDI-I was 3. CONCLUSION: The NDI was successfully translated into Italian and proved to have a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for research purposes.
Darrel S Brodke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
responsiveness of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system promis Neck Disability Index ndi and oswestry Disability Index odi instruments in patients with spinal disorders
The Spine Journal, 2019Co-Authors: Man Hung, Brandon D Lawrence, Charles L Saltzman, Maren W Voss, Jerry Bounsanga, Richard Kendall, Ryan Spiker, Darrel S BrodkeAbstract:Abstract BACKGROUND CONTEXT The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian. OUTCOME MEASURES The PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered. METHODS Baseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. RESULTS The PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p CONCLUSION This study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.
-
responsiveness of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system promis Neck Disability Index ndi and oswestry Disability Index odi instruments in patients with spinal disorders
The Spine Journal, 2019Co-Authors: Man Hung, Brandon D Lawrence, Charles L Saltzman, Maren W Voss, Jerry Bounsanga, Richard Kendall, Ryan Spiker, Darrel S BrodkeAbstract:Abstract BACKGROUND CONTEXT The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian. OUTCOME MEASURES The PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered. METHODS Baseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. RESULTS The PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p CONCLUSION This study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.
-
challenging the norm further psychometric investigation of the Neck Disability Index
The Spine Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Man Hung, Christine Cheng, Shirley D Hon, Jeremy D Franklin, Brandon D Lawrence, Ashley Neese, Chase B Grover, Darrel S BrodkeAbstract:Abstract Background context The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the first patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument specific to patients with Neck pain, and it remains one of the most widely used PROs for the Neck population. The NDI is an appealing measure as it is a short and well-known PRO measure. Currently, there are conflicting data on the performance and applicability of the NDI in patients undergoing either operative or nonoperative treatment for Neck-related conditions. Purpose This study investigates the psychometric properties, performance, and applicability of the NDI in the spine patient population. Study design A total of 865 patients visiting a university-based spine clinic with Neck complaints, with or without radiating upper extremity pain, numbness, or weakness were enrolled in the study. Visit types included new and follow-up visits to both operative and nonoperative treatments. Questionnaires were administered electronically on a tablet computer, and all patients answered all 10 questions of the NDI. Methods Standard descriptive statistics were performed to describe the demographic characteristics of the patients. Rasch modeling was applied to examine the psychometric properties of the NDI. Results The NDI demonstrated insufficient unidimensionality (ie, unexplained variance after accounting for the first dimension=9.4%). Person reliability was 0.85 and item reliability was 1.00 for the NDI. The overall item fit for the NDI was good with an outfit mean square of 1.03. The NDI had a floor effect of 35.5% and ceiling effect of 4.6%. The raw score to measure correlation of the NDI was 0.019. Conclusions Although the NDI had good person and item reliability, it did not demonstrate strong evidence of unidimensionality. The NDI exhibited a very large floor effect. Because of the poor raw score to measure correlation, the sum score should not be used in interpretation of findings. Despite great investment by physicians and other stakeholders in the NDI, this evaluation and previous research have demonstrated that the NDI needs further investigation and refinement.
