The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale: development and evaluation of a new functional outcome measure for cervical radicular syndrome

References

• Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, et al. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy: a population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117:325–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoss RE, Corbin KB, Maccarty CS, et al. Significance of symptoms and signs in localization of involved root in cervical disk protrusion. Neurology. 1957;7:673–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salemi G, Savettieri G, Meneghini F, et al. Prevalence of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a door-to-door survey in a Sicilian municipality. Acta Neurol Scand. 1996;93:184–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carette S, Fehlings MG. Clinical practice: cervical radiculopathy. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:392–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebremariam L, Koes BW, Peul WC, et al. Evaluation of treatment effectiveness for the herniated cervical disc: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E109–E118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuijper B, Tans JT, Beelen A, et al. Cervical collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent onset cervical radiculopathy: randomised trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b3883.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker E, et al. The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation: a double-blind randomised multicenter study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Geest S, Kuijper B, Oterdoom M, et al. CASINO: surgical or nonsurgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loos MJ, Houterman S, Scheltinga MR, et al. Evaluating postherniorrhaphy groin pain: visual Analogue or Verbal Rating Scale? Hernia. 2008;12:147–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon H. The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991–2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:491–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veehof MM, Sleegers EJ, van Veldhoven NH, et al. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther. 2002;15:347–354.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Cognitive interviewing in practice: think-aloud, verbal probing and other techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005. p. 42–63.
   Google Scholar
• Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in Medicine. 1st ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Principal components and factor analysis, 4th ed. Vol.13. Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens JP. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 4th ed. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002. p. 385–469.
   Google Scholar
• Cattell RB. Citation classic––the screen test for the number of factors. Cc/Soc Behav Sci. 1983;5:16.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Measure. 1960;20:141–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:30–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wibault J, oberg B, Dedering A, et al. Individual factors associated with neck disability in patients with cervical radiculopathy scheduled for surgery: a study on physical impairments, psychosocial factors, and life style habits. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:599–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ailliet L, Knol DL, Rubinstein SM, et al. Definition of the construct to be measured is a prerequisite for the assessment of validity. The Neck Disability Index as an example. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:775–782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoving JL, O'Leary EF, Niere KR, et al. Validity of the neck disability index, Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, and problem elicitation technique for measuring disability associated with whiplash-associated disorders. Pain. 2003;102:273–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, et al. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:631–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Raaij EJ, Schroder C, Maissan FJ, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version. Man Ther. 2012;17:330–335.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE. Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1121–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality Life Res. 2012;21:651–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Quality Life Res. 2012;21:1305–1314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality Life Res. 2001;10:571–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:804–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:524–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumat. 2002;14:109–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:37–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar