We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDIES
The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis.
Spine 2003 January 2
STUDY DESIGN: Outcome study to determine response distribution, internal consistency, reproducibility, and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire.
OBJECTIVES: Further refinement of an HRQL questionnaire specific for idiopathic scoliosis.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous experience with the original and modified SRS HRQL questionnaires suggested a need for further refinement and more complete validation.
METHODS: The SRS-22 and Short Form 36 (SF-36) HRQL questionnaires were mailed to 83 previously surveyed postoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight (70%) patients returned the first set of questionnaires. Their average age at surgery was 14.6 years, and their average follow-up interval since surgery was 10.8 years. Fifty-one (88%) of the 58 returned the second set of questionnaires an average of 28 days later. The psychometric attributes of the instruments were comparable: score distribution, SRS-22 56.9% ceiling and 1.7% floor, SF-36 79.3% ceiling and 1.7% floor; internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), SRS-22 0.92 to 0.75, SF-36 0.91 to 0.36; and reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient), SRS-22 0.96 to 0.85, SF-36 0.92 to 0.61. Concurrent validity, determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients between SRS-22 and SF-36 domains, was 0.70 or greater ( < 0.0001) for 17 relevant comparisons.
CONCLUSION: The SRS-22 HRQL questionnaire is reliable with internal consistency and reproducibility comparable to SF-36. In addition, it demonstrated concurrent validity when compared to SF-36. It is shorter and more focused on the health issues related to idiopathic scoliosis than SF-36.
OBJECTIVES: Further refinement of an HRQL questionnaire specific for idiopathic scoliosis.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous experience with the original and modified SRS HRQL questionnaires suggested a need for further refinement and more complete validation.
METHODS: The SRS-22 and Short Form 36 (SF-36) HRQL questionnaires were mailed to 83 previously surveyed postoperative idiopathic scoliosis patients.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight (70%) patients returned the first set of questionnaires. Their average age at surgery was 14.6 years, and their average follow-up interval since surgery was 10.8 years. Fifty-one (88%) of the 58 returned the second set of questionnaires an average of 28 days later. The psychometric attributes of the instruments were comparable: score distribution, SRS-22 56.9% ceiling and 1.7% floor, SF-36 79.3% ceiling and 1.7% floor; internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), SRS-22 0.92 to 0.75, SF-36 0.91 to 0.36; and reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient), SRS-22 0.96 to 0.85, SF-36 0.92 to 0.61. Concurrent validity, determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients between SRS-22 and SF-36 domains, was 0.70 or greater ( < 0.0001) for 17 relevant comparisons.
CONCLUSION: The SRS-22 HRQL questionnaire is reliable with internal consistency and reproducibility comparable to SF-36. In addition, it demonstrated concurrent validity when compared to SF-36. It is shorter and more focused on the health issues related to idiopathic scoliosis than SF-36.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app