Neck Disability Index: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 26: Line 26:
=== Responsiveness  ===
=== Responsiveness  ===


There is evidence for the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the NDI<ref name="Riddle & Stratford">Riddle DL, Stratford PW.  Use of generic versus region specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Physical Therapy, 1998;78:951-963</ref><br>
Riddle DL, Stratford PW.  Use of generic versus region specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Physical Therapy, 1998;78:951-963<ref name="Riddle & Stratford">Riddle DL, Stratford PW.  Use of generic versus region specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Physical Therapy, 1998;78:951-963</ref><br>


=== Miscellaneous<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;"></span><br>  ===
=== Miscellaneous<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;"></span><br>  ===

Revision as of 13:42, 18 June 2009

Original Editor - Your name will be added here if you created the original content for this page.

Lead Editors - Your name will be added here if you are a lead editor on this page.  Read more.

Summary
[edit | edit source]

Patient-completed, condition-specific functional status questionnaire, based on the Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. 10 items including pain, personal care, lifting, reading, headaches, concentration, work, driving, sleeping and recreation. Each item is rated on a 6-point scale with scores varying between 0 and 50. The NDI has sufficient support and usefulness to retain its current status as the most commonly used self-report measure for neck pain[1].

Intended Population
[edit | edit source]

Chronic neck pain, musculoskeletal neck pain and whiplash injuries.

Reference
[edit | edit source]

Vernon H, Mior S. (1991) The neck disability index: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 14, 409-15[2]

Evidence[edit | edit source]

Reliability[edit | edit source]

Validity[edit | edit source]

Mark Chan Ci En, Dean A. Clair and Stephen J. Edmondston. Manual Therapy, 2009, 14(4):433-438[3]

Responsiveness[edit | edit source]

Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Use of generic versus region specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Physical Therapy, 1998;78:951-963[4]

Miscellaneous
[edit | edit source]

Recent Related Research (from Pubmed)[edit | edit source]

Failed to load RSS feed from http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/erss.cgi?rss_guid=1NwSQ1kPYoZ1BHXGyok_x3pfuZCMJvIb52XKsd8pCQejfeXAV|charset=UTF-8|short|max=10: Error parsing XML for RSS

References[edit | edit source]

References will automatically be added here, see adding references tutorial.

  1. Macdermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, McAlpine C, Goldsmith CH. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2009 May;39(5):400-17.
  2. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 1991, 14:409-15
  3. Mark Chan Ci En, Dean A. Clair and Stephen J. Edmondston. Manual Therapy, 2009, 14(4):433-438
  4. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Use of generic versus region specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Physical Therapy, 1998;78:951-963