A F Mannion1, A Elfering2, T F Fekete3, I J Harding4, M Monticone5, P Obid6, T Niemeyer7, U Liljenqvist8, A Boss9, L Zimmermann10, A Vila-Casademunt11, F J Sánchez Pérez-Grueso12, J Pizones12, F Pellisé13, S Richner-Wunderlin10, F S Kleinstück3, I Obeid14, L Boissiere14, A Alanay15, J Bagó11. 1. Department Teaching, Research and Development, Spine Subdivision, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland. anne.mannion@yahoo.com. 2. Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Spine Centre, Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK. 5. Department Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. 6. Dept. of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Surgery, Greifswald, University Hospital, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch-Strasse, Greifswald, 17475, Germany. 7. Spine and Scoliosis Center, Asklepios Paulinen Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany. 8. Department Spine Surgery, St Franziskus Hospital, Münster, Germany. 9. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 10. Department Teaching, Research and Development, Spine Subdivision, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland. 11. Spine Research Unit, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research, Barcelona, Spain. 12. Spine Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 13. Spine Unit, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 14. Spine Surgery Unit, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France. 15. Dept. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In patients with adult spinal deformity, it was previously shown that 16 of the non-management items of the SRS-instrument showed a better fit to the theoretical four-factor model (pain, function, self-image, mental health) than did all 20 items. Whether the same phenomenon is observed in data from younger (< 20y) patients, for whom the questionnaire was originally designed, is not currently known. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the 20 non-management items of the SRS-instrument completed by 3618 young patients with spinal deformity (75.5% female; mean age, 15.0 ± 2.0 years) and of its equivalence across language versions (2713 English-speaking, 270 Spanish, 264 German, 223 Italian, and 148 French). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) indicated model fit. RESULTS: Compared with the 20-item version, the 16-item solution significantly increased the fit (p < 0.001) across all language versions, to achieve good model fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06). For both 16-item and 20-item models, equivalence across languages was not reached, with some items showing weaker item-loading for some languages, in particular German and French. CONCLUSION: In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the shorter 16-item version showed a better fit to the intended 4-factor structure of the SRS-instrument. The wording of some of the items, and/or their equivalence across language versions, may need to be addressed. Questionnaire completion can be a burden for patients; if a shorter, more structurally valid version is available, its use should be encouraged.
PURPOSE: In patients with adult spinal deformity, it was previously shown that 16 of the non-management items of the SRS-instrument showed a better fit to the theoretical four-factor model (pain, function, self-image, mental health) than did all 20 items. Whether the same phenomenon is observed in data from younger (< 20y) patients, for whom the questionnaire was originally designed, is not currently known. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the 20 non-management items of the SRS-instrument completed by 3618 young patients with spinal deformity (75.5% female; mean age, 15.0 ± 2.0 years) and of its equivalence across language versions (2713 English-speaking, 270 Spanish, 264 German, 223 Italian, and 148 French). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) indicated model fit. RESULTS: Compared with the 20-item version, the 16-item solution significantly increased the fit (p < 0.001) across all language versions, to achieve good model fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06). For both 16-item and 20-item models, equivalence across languages was not reached, with some items showing weaker item-loading for some languages, in particular German and French. CONCLUSION: In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the shorter 16-item version showed a better fit to the intended 4-factor structure of the SRS-instrument. The wording of some of the items, and/or their equivalence across language versions, may need to be addressed. Questionnaire completion can be a burden for patients; if a shorter, more structurally valid version is available, its use should be encouraged.
Authors: Marco Monticone; Claudia Nava; Vittorio Leggero; Barbara Rocca; Stefano Salvaderi; Simona Ferrante; Emilia Ambrosini Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A F Mannion; A Elfering; J Bago; F Pellise; A Vila-Casademunt; S Richner-Wunderlin; M Domingo-Sàbat; I Obeid; E Acaroglu; A Alanay; F S Pérez-Grueso; C R Baldus; L Y Carreon; K H Bridwell; S D Glassman; F Kleinstück Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 3.134