RMD
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Climent Quality of Life for Spinal Deformities Scale

Climent Quality of Life for Spinal Deformities Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

A 21 item, 5-dimension questionnaire including assessment of function, sleep disturbances, pain, body image, and trunk flexibility to evaluate the quality of life of patients with spinal deformities particularly patients with idiopathic scoliosis

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym QLPSD (Quality of Life Profile for Spinal Deformities)

Area of Assessment

Quality of Life
Activities of Daily Living
Functional Mobility
Patient Satisfaction
Range of Motion
Sleep

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Populations

Spinal Injuries

Key Descriptions

  • A 21 item, 5-dimension questionnaire including assessment of function, sleep disturbances, pain, body image, and trunk flexibility. A higher score indicates a greater amount of disability. The maximum score is a 105, the lowest possible score is a 21.

Number of Items

21

Equipment Required

  • Pen/Pencil and assessment

Time to Administer

10 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adolescent

10 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Jae Fylstra

Lydia Friz

Emily Wittke

Rachel Meyers

Jerry Wang

Brittany Catcher

Derek Clewley, PT, DPT, PhD (Faculty)

Body Part

Back

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function
Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
General Health
Emotion
Motor

Considerations

Originally published in Spanish, however, there are English and German versions available

Spinal Injuries

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Patients ranging from 10-20 years of age with spinal cord deformities: (Climent et al., 1995; n=174; mean age: 15.2 years old, SD: 2.5 years) Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis: (Schulte et al., 2018; n=255; mean age 30.0 years old, SD:16.7 years) Patients 10 to 40 years old with idiopathic scoliosis (Matamalas et al., 2014: n=80: mean age: 20.3)
  • Excellent: r=0.91

Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis:

(Schulte et al., 2018)

  • Good: r=0.84

Internal Consistency

Patients ranging from 10-20 years of age with spinal cord deformities: (Climent et al., 1995)

  • Good: Overall a = 0.88
  • Individual domains: Psychological functioning (a=0.81), sleep disturbances (a=0.84), back pain (a=0.75), body image (0.70), back flexibility (a=0.70)

Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis:

(Schulte et al., 2018)

  • Excellent: Overall a = 0.93
  • Individual domains: Psychosocial functioning (a=0.86), sleep disturbances (a =0.85), back pain (a=0.87), body image (a=0.88), back flexibility (a=0.89)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent:

Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis:

(Schulte et al., 2018)

  • Excellent correlation between total score and PHQ-9 depression score (r = 0.70) and the WHO-5 Well-Being score (r = -0.65)
  • Excellent correlation between body image subscale with the FKS (r = 0.71)

Construct Validity

Convergent:

Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis:

(Schulte et al., 2018)

  • Excellent correlation with the SRS 22-r measure (r = -.86)

 

Discriminant:

Patients ranging from 10-20 years of age with spinal cord deformities: (Climent et al., 1995)

  • Excellent overall discriminant validity of r = 0.38. The individual components are: psychological (r = 0.28), body image (r = 0.30), sleep disturbances (r = 0.27), back pain (r = 0.30)

 

Patients 14 years and older with idiopathic scoliosis: (Schulte et al., 2018)

  • Significant difference between population total score and control group (F = 14.88, df = 1, 376, P < 0.01)

Responsiveness

The last question of the questionnaire was designed to measure responsiveness (Regarding my last medical evaluation with my back specialist, I feel – much better, better, the same, worse, much worse); however, no data has been collected on this question’s effectiveness in measuring responsiveness.

Bibliography

  1. Climent, J.M., Reig, A., Sánchez, J., & Roda, C. Construction and Validation of a Specific  Quality of Life Instrument for Adolescents With Spine Deformities. Spine. 1995; 20(18):      2006-11.
  2. Matamalas, A., Bago, J., D’Agata, E., Pelliseé F. Body image in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison study of psychometric properties between four patient-reported outcome instruments. Health and Quality of LIfe, 12(81),1-3.doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-81
  3. Pham, V. M., Houlliez, A., Carpentier, A., Herbaux, B., Schill, A., & Thevenon, A. Determination of the influence of the Chêneau brace on quality of life for adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Annals of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2008. 51(1): 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annrmp.2007.08.008
  4. Schulte, T. L., Thielsch, M. T., Gosheger, G., Boertz, P., Terheyden, J. H., & Wetterkamp, M. German validation of the quality of life profile for spinal disorders (QLPSD). European Spine Journal. 2018. 27: 83-92.
rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Aug 14, 2023

Physical Activity Recall A...

read more

updated May 4, 2023

Psychosocial Adjustment to...

read more

updated May 19, 2022

6 Minute Push Test

read more