Cross-cultural Adaption and Validity of the “Patient Specific Functional Scale” / Kulturelle Adaption und Validierung der deutschen Version der “Patient Specific Functional Scale”

Patrick Heldmann 1 , Thomas Schöttker-Königer 1 , and Axel Schäfer 1
  • 1 HAWK Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaft und Kunst Fachhochschule, Göttingen Fakultät Soziale Arbeit und Gesundheit Master-Studiengang Ergotherapie, Logopädie, Physiotherapie, Hildesheim


Objective: Measurement of activity and participation related outcomes play an important role in rehabilitation of low back pain. Therefore the „Patient Specific Functional Scale»(PSFS) was developed to assess individual, patient related activities. The aim of this study is the cultural adaptation and validation of the PSFS for German speaking countries.

Method: A cultural translation and adaptation process was carried out in accordance with standardized guidelines. The internal and external responsiveness and the construct validity adjustment to the German version pertaining to patients with lumbar back pain was examined in comparison to the «Oswestry Disability Index»(ODI).

Results: In both groups the PSFS proved itself to be more sensitive in comparison to the ODI. The internal responsiveness of ODI improved ES= -0.75), (non-improved ES= -0.38). PSFS (improved ES= 1.96), (non-improved ES 0.77). The external responsiveness of ODI (AUC= 0.59), of PSFS (AUC= 0.83) (P= 0.0068). Constructs of both measurement instruments have a weak and a moderate correlation on measuring point 1 (r= -0.28) and 2 (r= -0.58).

Conclusion: The German version of PSFS proves itself to be a feasible model and a method of high sensitivity in evaluating changes in the functional ability of patients with lumbar back pain. The instrument can be recommended to be used in clinical practice.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. et al. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine, 25 (24), 3186-3191.

  • Beurskens, A.J.H.M., de Vet ,H.C.W., Köke, A.J.A. (1996). Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain, 65, 71-76.

  • Bullinger, M., Kirchberger, I., Ware, J. (1995). Der deutsche SF-36 Health Survey, Übersetzung und psychometrische Testung eines krankheitsübergreifenden Instrumentes zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften, 1, 21-36.

  • Chatman, A.B., Hyams, S.P., Neel, J.M., Binkley, J.M., Stratford, P.W., Schomberg, A., Stabler, M. (1997). The patient specific functional scale: Measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunctions. Phys Ther., 77 (8), 820-829.

  • Cleland, J., Gillani, R., Bienen, J., Sadosky, A. (2010). Assessing Dimensionality and Responsiveness of Outcomes Measures for Patients with Low Back Pain. Pain Practise, 11 (1), 57-69.

  • Costa, L.O.P., Maher, C.G., Latimer, J. et al. (2008). Clinimetric Testing of three self-report outcome Measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: Which one is the best? Spine, 33 (22), 2459-2463.

  • Deyo, R.D., Andersson, G., Bombardier, C. et al . (1994). Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine, 19 (18 Suppl), 2032S-2036S.

  • Fairbank, J.C.T., Couper Mbaot, J., Davies, J.B. et al. (1980). The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy, 66, 271-273.

  • Feinstein 1986 und Guyatt 1987,zit. n. Beurskens, A.J.H.M.., de Vet, H.C.W., Köke, A.J.A. (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain, 65, 71-76.

  • Guyatt, G., Berman, L.B., Towsend, M. et al. (1985). Should study subjects see their previous responses? J Chron Dis, 38 (12), 1003-1007.

  • Haigh R., Tennant, A., Biering-Sörensen, F. et al. (2001).The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and, rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med, 33, 273-2786.

  • Hall, A.M., Maher, C.G., Latimer, J. et al. (2011).The patient-specific functional scale is more responsive than the Roland Morris disability questionnaire when activity limitation is low. Eur Spine J, 20, 79-86.

  • Husted, J.A., Cook, R.J., Farewell, V.T. et al. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459-468.

  • Jolles, B.M., Buchbinder, R., Beaton, DE. (2005). A study compared nine patient-specific indices for musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 791-801.

  • Kamper, S.J., Maher, C.G., Mackay, G. (2009). Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17 (3), 163-170.

  • Kumar, R., Indrayan, A. (2011). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve for Medical Researchers. Indian Pediatrics, 48, 277-287.

  • Mannion, A.F., Junge, A., Fairbank, J.C.T. et al. (2006a). Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaption, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J, 15, 55-65.

  • Mannion, A.F., Junge, A., Fairbank, J.C.T. et al. (2006b). Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J, 15, 66-73.

  • Maschewsky-Schneider, U. (2009). Bundesgesundheitsblatt , 52, 764-774. doi: 10.1007/s00103-009-0870-0

  • Maughan, E.F., Lewis, J.S. (2010) Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J, 19, 1484-1494.

  • Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L. et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737-745.

  • Pengel, L.H.M., Refshauge, K.M., Maher, C.G. (2003).Responsiveness of Pain, Disability, and Physical Impairment Outcomes in Patients with Low Back Pain. Spine, 29, (8), 879-883.

  • Roland, M., Fairbank, J. (2000) The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 25 (24), 3115-3124.

  • Statistisches_Bundesamt (2010). Statistisches Jahrbuch 2010 (Adobe Digital Editions version).

  • Sterling, M. (2007). Patient Specific Functional Scale: Summary. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 53, 65.

  • Stratford, P., Gill, C., Westaway, M., Binkley, J. (1995). Assesing disability and change on individual patients: A report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 47 (4), 258-263.

  • Terwee, C.B., Bot, S.D.M., de Boer, M.R. et al. (2007).Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34-42.

  • Wenig, C. M. (2009). Costs of back pain in Germany. Eur J Pain, 13(3), 280-6.


Journal + Issues