Mannion, A F; Elfering, A; Fekete, T F; Harding, I J; Monticone, M; Obid, P; Niemeyer, T; Liljenqvist, U; Boss, A; Zimmermann, L; Vila-Casademunt, A; Sánchez Pérez-Grueso, F J; Pizones, J; Pellisé, F; Richner-Wunderlin, S; Kleinstück, F S; Obeid, I; Boissiere, L; Alanay, A and Bagó, J (2022). Shorter and sweeter: the 16-item version of the SRS questionnaire shows better structural validity than the 20-item version in young patients with spinal deformity. Spine deformity, 10(5), pp. 1055-1062. Springer 10.1007/s43390-022-00509-5
|
Text
Mannion_SpineDeform_2022_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (334kB) | Preview |
|
![[img]](https://boris.unibe.ch/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Mannion_SpineDeform_2022.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (664kB) | Request a copy |
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.
Item Type: |
Journal Article (Original Article) |
|---|---|
Division/Institute: |
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM) 07 Faculty of Human Sciences > Institute of Psychology > Work and Organisational Psychology |
UniBE Contributor: |
Elfering, Achim, Boss, Andreas |
Subjects: |
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health 300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services 100 Philosophy > 150 Psychology 300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology |
ISSN: |
2212-134X |
Publisher: |
Springer |
Language: |
English |
Submitter: |
Pubmed Import |
Date Deposited: |
28 Apr 2022 10:28 |
Last Modified: |
29 Apr 2023 00:25 |
Publisher DOI: |
10.1007/s43390-022-00509-5 |
PubMed ID: |
35476321 |
Uncontrolled Keywords: |
AIS Factor analysis Language versions Patient-reported outcome SRS-22 |
BORIS DOI: |
10.48350/169577 |
URI: |
https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/169577 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |