Title: Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain - ScienceDirect
Headings: Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain
Manual Therapy
Original Article
Validity of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale for measuring disability associated with chronic, non-traumatic neck pain
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study population
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Patient questionnaires
2.4. Statistical analyses
3. Results
3.1. Content validity
3.2. Construct validity
4. Discussion
Acknowledgements
References

Content: It was originally developed to evaluate the activities of daily living in patients with disabling neck pain, particularly that resulting from whiplash trauma ( Vernon and Mior, 1991 ). The NDI includes 10 questions of which 7 examine functional activities, 2 ask about symptoms and the final question considers concentration. The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) was developed to provide clinicians with a tool to assess the multi-dimensional effects of the neck pain disorder ( Wheeler et al., 1999 ). The scale consists of 20 questions relating to 4 domains (neck function, pain intensity, emotion/cognition and activities of daily living) which look at the effects of the neck pain disorder on patients' physical and emotional functions. The potential limitation of these questionnaires, and others with fixed questions, is that they constrain the scope of the evaluation to the specific issues included. Therefore, the questionnaire may include questions not relevant to some patients, and may not include issues of importance. An alternative to the fixed-item questionnaire are the patient-specific techniques which require patients to generate their own, possibly unique, set of problems or items. The patient-specific methods offer the advantage of identifying the problems or issues relevant to each individual, and are therefore consistent with the approach to patient evaluation commonly employed in clinical practice ( Jolles et al., 2005 ).