The use of Rasch analysis to validate questionnaires of physical functioning in chronic low back pain: a systematic review

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-07 DOI:10.1016/j.rehab.2026.102164

Charlotte Lanhers, Bruno Pereira, Eliot Picard, Emmanuel Coudeyre, Christian Dualé

{"title":"The use of Rasch analysis to validate questionnaires of physical functioning in chronic low back pain: a systematic review","authors":"Charlotte Lanhers, Bruno Pereira, Eliot Picard, Emmanuel Coudeyre, Christian Dualé","doi":"10.1016/j.rehab.2026.102164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The questionnaires currently used to assess physical functioning in low back pain (LBP) are the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Whereas those tools had traditionally been validated according to the classical test theory, Rasch analysis – based on the item response theory – offers a more refined item-level assessment. However, despite recommendations, reporting standards for Rasch analyses remain inconsistent. This review aimed to describe the use of Rasch analysis to validate these tools and assess their reporting quality.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane was conducted without time restrictions, including studies in English or French analyzing Rasch models for the ODI, RMDQ, or QBPDS. Keywords included terms related to “low back pain,” “validation,” and “Rasch analysis.”</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 107 eligible studies, 23 (22%) applied a Rasch analysis. The ODI (<em>k</em> = 11) and the RMDQ (<em>k</em> = 10) were more frequently analyzed than the QBPDS (<em>k</em> = 2). Most studies (87%) had Rasch analysis as a primary objective. Reporting rates varied widely. The software used (91%), unidimensionality testing (83%), and fit statistics (78%) were well documented, whereas response dependency (30%) and person fit tests (17%) were rarely reported.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Although recommended to validate questionnaires of physical functioning in LBP, Rasch analysis is underused and inconsistently reported. Variable terminology and software output complicate comparisons. Insufficient critical appraisal tools hinder the adoption of methods. Standardized reporting guidelines and enhanced expertise are needed to improve the integration of Rasch into psychometric assessments.</div></div><div><h3>PROSPERO registration</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: 1157921, date of registration: 29 September 2025).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":"69 6","pages":"Article 102164"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065726000679","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The questionnaires currently used to assess physical functioning in low back pain (LBP) are the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Whereas those tools had traditionally been validated according to the classical test theory, Rasch analysis – based on the item response theory – offers a more refined item-level assessment. However, despite recommendations, reporting standards for Rasch analyses remain inconsistent. This review aimed to describe the use of Rasch analysis to validate these tools and assess their reporting quality.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane was conducted without time restrictions, including studies in English or French analyzing Rasch models for the ODI, RMDQ, or QBPDS. Keywords included terms related to “low back pain,” “validation,” and “Rasch analysis.”

Results

Of 107 eligible studies, 23 (22%) applied a Rasch analysis. The ODI (k = 11) and the RMDQ (k = 10) were more frequently analyzed than the QBPDS (k = 2). Most studies (87%) had Rasch analysis as a primary objective. Reporting rates varied widely. The software used (91%), unidimensionality testing (83%), and fit statistics (78%) were well documented, whereas response dependency (30%) and person fit tests (17%) were rarely reported.

Discussion

Although recommended to validate questionnaires of physical functioning in LBP, Rasch analysis is underused and inconsistently reported. Variable terminology and software output complicate comparisons. Insufficient critical appraisal tools hinder the adoption of methods. Standardized reporting guidelines and enhanced expertise are needed to improve the integration of Rasch into psychometric assessments.

PROSPERO registration

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: 1157921, date of registration: 29 September 2025).

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用Rasch分析来验证慢性腰痛患者身体功能的问卷调查：一项系统综述。

背景：目前用于评估腰痛（LBP）身体功能的问卷有Oswestry残疾指数（ODI）、Roland-Morris残疾问卷（RMDQ）和魁北克背痛残疾量表（QBPDS）。传统上，这些工具是根据经典的测试理论来验证的，而Rasch分析——基于项目反应理论——提供了一个更精细的项目层面的评估。然而，尽管有这些建议，Rasch分析的报告标准仍然不一致。本综述旨在描述Rasch分析的使用，以验证这些工具并评估其报告质量。方法：在没有时间限制的情况下，对PubMed、Embase、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane进行系统检索，包括用英语或法语分析ODI、RMDQ或QBPDS的Rasch模型的研究。关键词包括与“腰痛”、“验证”和“皮疹分析”相关的术语。结果：在107项符合条件的研究中，23项（22%）采用了Rasch分析。ODI （k = 11）和RMDQ （k = 10）的分析频率高于QBPDS （k = 2）。大多数研究（87%）将Rasch分析作为主要目标。报告率差异很大。所使用的软件（91%）、单维性测试（83%）和拟合统计（78%）都有很好的记录，而反应依赖性（30%）和人的拟合测试（17%）很少被报道。讨论：虽然建议对腰痛患者的身体功能问卷进行验证，但Rasch分析未得到充分利用，且报告不一致。可变的术语和软件输出使比较复杂化。批判性评价工具的不足阻碍了方法的采用。需要标准化的报告准则和加强的专门知识，以改进Rasch与心理测量评估的结合。普洛斯彼罗注册：该系统评价和荟萃分析已在普洛斯彼罗注册（注册号：1157921，注册日期：2025年9月29日）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Medicine-Rehabilitation

CiteScore

7.80

自引率

4.30%

发文量

136

审稿时长

34 days

期刊介绍： Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine covers all areas of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine; such as: methods of evaluation of motor, sensory, cognitive and visceral impairments; acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain; disabilities in adult and children ; processes of rehabilitation in orthopaedic, rhumatological, neurological, cardiovascular, pulmonary and urological diseases.