ORIGINAL PAPER
Responsiveness of the Myanmar versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire in individuals with subacute and chronic low back pain
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
2
Centre for Physiotherapy Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
Submission date: 2025-10-31
Acceptance date: 2026-05-04
Online publication date: 2026-11-05
Corresponding author
Praneet Pensri
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, 154 Soi Chula 12, Rama I Rd., Wang Mai Subdistrict, Pathumwan District, Bangkok, Thailand, 10330
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, 154 Soi Chula 12, Rama I Rd., Wang Mai Subdistrict, Pathumwan District, Bangkok, Thailand, 10330
KEYWORDS
nonspecific low back painresponsivenessOswestry Disability Index QuestionnaireRoland–Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The ability of an outcome measure to detect clinically meaningful changes is essential for both clinical decision-making and research. The Myanmar versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (M-ODQ) and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (M-RMDQ) have recently been validated; however, their responsiveness has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to determine the responsiveness of the M-ODQ and the M-RMDQ in individuals with subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) in the Myanmar population.
Methods:
The responsiveness of M-ODQ and M-RMDQ was assessed in 102 individuals with subacute and chronic nonspecific LBP after a 4-week intervention period. Responsiveness of both questionnaires was evaluated by determining the effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and correlation analysis with a 7-point global perceived effect (GPE) scale, visual analogue scale (VAS), Stark Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire, and back performance scale (BPS).
Results:
In participants who reported improvement, the ES and SRM were 0.73 and 0.66 for M-ODQ and 0.85 and 0.78 for M-RMDQ, respectively. The AUC values of the M-ODQ and M-RMDQ were 0.724 and 0.718, indicating that the outcome measures had acceptable responsiveness to detect clinical change. Correlations of the M-ODQ and M-RMDQ with the other external responsiveness measures were fair to moderate, with the rho values ranging from –0.341 to 0.521 for all the measures.
Conclusions:
The M-ODQ and M-RMDQ demonstrated satisfactory responsiveness, which indicated their usefulness as outcome measures to detect clinically meaningful changes in both clinical and research settings in the Myanmar population with subacute and chronic nonspecific LBP.
The ability of an outcome measure to detect clinically meaningful changes is essential for both clinical decision-making and research. The Myanmar versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (M-ODQ) and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (M-RMDQ) have recently been validated; however, their responsiveness has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to determine the responsiveness of the M-ODQ and the M-RMDQ in individuals with subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) in the Myanmar population.
Methods:
The responsiveness of M-ODQ and M-RMDQ was assessed in 102 individuals with subacute and chronic nonspecific LBP after a 4-week intervention period. Responsiveness of both questionnaires was evaluated by determining the effect size (ES), standardised response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and correlation analysis with a 7-point global perceived effect (GPE) scale, visual analogue scale (VAS), Stark Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire, and back performance scale (BPS).
Results:
In participants who reported improvement, the ES and SRM were 0.73 and 0.66 for M-ODQ and 0.85 and 0.78 for M-RMDQ, respectively. The AUC values of the M-ODQ and M-RMDQ were 0.724 and 0.718, indicating that the outcome measures had acceptable responsiveness to detect clinical change. Correlations of the M-ODQ and M-RMDQ with the other external responsiveness measures were fair to moderate, with the rho values ranging from –0.341 to 0.521 for all the measures.
Conclusions:
The M-ODQ and M-RMDQ demonstrated satisfactory responsiveness, which indicated their usefulness as outcome measures to detect clinically meaningful changes in both clinical and research settings in the Myanmar population with subacute and chronic nonspecific LBP.
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Atlas SJ, Deyo RA. Evaluating and managing acute low back pain in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(2):120–31; doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.91141.x.
2.
Pensri P, Foster NE, Srisuk S, Baxter GD, McDonough SM. Physiotherapy management of low back pain in Thailand: a study of practice. Physiother Res Int. 2005;10(4):201–12; doi: 10.1002/pri.16.
3.
Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13(3):205–17; doi: 10.1097/00002517-200006000-00003.
4.
Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):769–81; doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002.
5.
Binaya K, Kajal T, Ranjeeta AS, Govinda N. Responsiveness of Nepali version of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) on individuals with non-specific low back pain. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:67; doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00343-9.
6.
Opara J, Polak A. The role of daily physical activity in preventing low back pain. Physiother Quart. 2025;33(3):13–9; doi: 10.5114/pq/1991126.
7.
Ma C, Wu S, Xiao L, Xue Y. Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:475–81; doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1624-2.
8.
Tsang RC. Measurement properties of the Hong Kong Chinese version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2004;22(1):40–9; doi: 10.1016/S1013-7025(09)70049-1.
9.
Hartvigsen J, Hancock M, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D, Karppinen J, Pransky G, Sieper J, Smeets RJ, Underwood M; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391:2356–67; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X.
10.
Perillo M, Bulbulian R. Responsiveness of the Bournemouth and Oswestry questionnaires: a prospective pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26(2):77–86; doi: 10.1067/mmt.2003.6.
11.
Oo PS, Akkradate S, Praneet P. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for individuals with low back pain in Myanmar: psychometric validation study. J Health Sci Altern Med. 2023;5(3):44–53; doi: 10.14456/jhsam.2023.16.
12.
Monticone M, Baiardi P, Vanti C, Ferrari S, Pillastrini P, Mugnai R, Foti C. Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Italian subjects with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:122–9; doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1959-3.
13.
Moon J, Kim YC, Park SY, Lee SC, Choi SP, Nahm FS, Lee PB, Goo EK, Kang J-M. Psychometric characteristics of the Korean version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. J Korean Med Sci. 2011;26(10):1364–70; doi: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.10.1364.
14.
Mbada CE, Oguntoyinbo OE, Fasuyi FO, Idowu OA, Odole AC, Ayanniyi O, Johnson OE, Orimolade EA, Oladiran AB, Fatoye F. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Yoruba version of Oswestry Disability Index. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0221138; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221138.
15.
Oo PS, Siriphorn A, Pensri P. The Myanmar version of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire: a cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity study in the low back pain population. J Health Sci Med Res. 2024;43(1):20241078; doi: 10.31584/jhsmr.20241078.
16.
Vianin M. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropr Med. 2008;7(4):161–3; doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2008.07.001.
17.
Coelho RA, Siqueira FB, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. Responsiveness of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(8):1101–6; doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0690-1.
18.
Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Danish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Part 2: sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement in two low back pain populations. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1717–28; 10.1007/s00586-006-0128-6.
20.
Hüllemann P, Keller T, Kabelitz M, Gierthmühlen J, Freynhagen R, Tölle T, Forstenpointner J, Baron R. Clinical manifestation of acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain in different age groups: low back pain in 35,446 patients. Pain Pract. 2018;18(8):1011–23; doi: 10.1111/papr.12704.
21.
Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25(24):3115–24; doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006.
22.
Boonstra AM, Preuper HRS, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(2):165–9; doi: 10.1097/mrr.0b013e3282fc0f93.
23.
Hardt J. A new questionnaire for measuring quality of life-the Stark QoL. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:174; doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0367-5.
24.
Strand LI, Moe-Nilssen R, Ljunggren AE. Back Performance Scale for the assessment of mobility-related activities in people with back pain. Phys Ther. 2002;82(12):1213–23.
25.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8–24; doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.1.8.
26.
Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Terwee CB, Wells GA, Tugwell P, Ostelo RW. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2016;96(10):1620–37; doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150420.
27.
Evans R, Bronfort G, Maiers M, Schulz C, Hartvigsen J. “I know it’s changed”: a mixed-methods study of the meaning of global perceived effect in chronic neck pain patients. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(4):888–97; doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3149-y.
28.
Alrwaily M, Schneider M, Sowa G, Timko M, Whitney SL, Delitto A. Stabilization exercises combined with neuromuscular electrical stimulation for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23(6):506–15; doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.10.003.
29.
Koldaş Doğan Ş, Sonel Tur B, Kurtaiş Y, Atay MB. Comparison of three different approaches in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27(7):873–81; doi: 10.1007/s10067-007-0815-7.
30.
Palmer E. Hot packs. Glendale: Cinahl Information Systems, a division of EBSCO Information Services; 2021.
31.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
32.
Ward MM, Marx AS, Barry NN. Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(3):279–84; doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00140-7.
33.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45; doi: 10.2307/2531595.
34.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68; doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1.
35.
Bejia I, Younes M, Kamel BS, Letaief M, Touzi M, Soltani M, Bergaoui N. Validation of the Tunisian version of the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(2):171–4; doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0730-4.
36.
Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Pozzi GC, Ribeiro RN. Psychometric characteristics of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the functional rating index and the Roland Morris disability questionnaire. Spine. 2007;32(17):1902–7; doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811eab33.
37.
Payares K, Lugo LH, Restrepo A. Validation of the Roland Morris Questionnaire in Colombia to evaluate disability in low back pain. Spine. 2015;40(14):1108–14; doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000963.
38.
Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Fairbank JCT. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:66–73; doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z.
39.
Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S. Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine. 2008;33(22):2450–7; doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd.
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
