ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017
The Oswestry Disability Index, confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 35,263 verifies a one-factor structure but practicality issues remain.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychometric analysis of the questionnaires for the assessment of upper limbs available in their Italian version: a systematic review of the structural and psychometric characteristics.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Pooled it
- Measurement Properties of the Japanese Oswestry Disability Index in Preoperative Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Effect of Pain and Numbness: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- The impact of completion time on the reliability and validity of online electronic questionnaires: a preliminary study of the FABQ and ODI scales.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity of Oswestry Disability Index among patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in Outcomes of a 12-Week Digital Rehabilitation Program for Musculoskeletal Pain: Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Digital Rehabilitation for Acute Low Back Pain: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Indonesian version of the Oswestry Disability Index.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Yoruba version of Oswestry disability index.PloS one · 2020Article
- Prediction of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) using PROMIS-29 in a national sample of lumbar spine surgery patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Validation of the Croatian version of the Oswestry Disability Index.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
- Observational
- Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the spine functional index.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the factor structure of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in a large symptomatic low back pain (LBP) population using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
methodsAnalysis of pooled baseline ODI LBP patient data from the international Spine Tango registry of EUROSPINE, the Spine Society of Europe. The sample, with n = 35,263 (55.2% female; age 15-99, median 59 years), included 76.1% of patients with a degenerative disease, and 23.9% of the patients with various other spinal conditions. The initial EFA provided a hypothetical construct for consideration. Subsequent CFA was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate genders. Models were compared empirically for best fit.
resultsThe EFA indicated a one-factor solution accounting for 54% of the total variance. The CFA analysis based on the full sample confirmed this one-factor structure. Sub-group analyses by gender achieved good model fit for configural and partial metric invariance, but not scalar invariance. A possible two-construct model solution as outlined by previous researchers: dynamic-activities (personal care, lifting, walking, sex and social) and static-activities (pain, sleep, standing, travelling and sitting) was not preferred.
conclusionsThe ODI demonstrated a one-factor structure in a large LBP sample. A potential two-factor model was considered, but not found appropriate for constructs of dynamic and static activity. The use of the single summary score for the ODI is psychometrically supported. However, practicality limitations were reported for use in the clinical and research settings. Researchers are encouraged to consider a shift towards newer, more sensitive and robustly developed instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28646454What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.