Demonstrates how spinal conditions impact quality of life and facilitate comparisons of the quality of life before and after surgical intervention.
SRS-22: 22
SRS-30: 31
10-20 minutes
Adolescents
13 - 17
yearsAdults
18 - 64
yearsInitially reviewed in 2018 by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students LaQueishia Cummins, Myeisha Hansbrough, and Laura Jennison.
Consider the literacy level of the individual completing the questionnaire.
While the SRS 22/30 has been translated into many languages, the language of administration should also be considered.
Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010; n = 887; mean age = 14.3 (1.9); mean Cobb angle = 53 degrees (18 degrees); 1 year post-operation)
SEM for Appearance = 0.21
SEM for Activity = 0.17
SEM for Pain = 0.15
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Théroux et al., 2017; n = 352; mean age = 14.3 (1.8); French sample)
Pain: 0.034
Self-Image: 0.033
Function: 0.021
Mental Health: 0.035
Satisfaction with Management: 0.048
Total: 0.02
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014; n = 200, French-Canadian sample)
Pain: 0.50
Self-image: 0.53
Function: 0.47
Mental health: 0.53
Adult Spinal Deformity: (Kyr?l? et al., 2017; n = 274; Finnish sample)
|
Domains |
Patients Self-Reported Change |
First Measurement Mean (SD) |
Change to Measurement 2, Mean (95% CI) |
ICC (95% CI) |
SEM (Range) |
|
Function |
All |
2.75 (0.70) |
-0.02 (-0.07-0.03) |
0.829 (0.788-0.863) |
0.28 (0.26-0.31) |
|
|
Improved |
2.93 (0.71) |
0.12 (-0.02-0.26) |
0.719 (0.555-0.829) |
0.37 (0.31-0.46) |
|
|
Stable |
2.79 (0.72) |
-0.04 (-0.09-0.02) |
0.871 (0.827-0.904) |
0.25 (0.22-0.28) |
|
|
Worse |
2.51 (0.59) |
-0.08 (-0.18-0.02) |
0.754 (0.627-0.843) |
0.29 (0.24-0.35) |
|
Pain |
All |
2.45 (0.75) |
0.08 (0.01-0.14) |
0.741 (0.681-0.790) |
0.38 (0.35-0.42) |
|
|
Improved |
2.52 (0.66) |
0.27 (0.12-0.41) |
0.636 (0.384-0.789) |
0.42 (0.32-0.61) |
|
|
Stable |
2.54 (0.78) |
0.05 (-0.03-0.12) |
0.759 (0.684-0.818) |
0.38 (0.34-0.42) |
|
|
Worse |
2.19 (0.68) |
-0.01 (-0.13-0.12) |
0.708 (0.561-0.811) |
0.36 (0.31-0.43) |
|
Self-Image/Appearance |
All |
2.77 (0.65) |
0.00 (-0.05-0.05) |
0.795 (0.749-0.834) |
0.30 (0.28-0.33) |
|
|
Improved |
2.90 (0.59) |
0.19 (0.06-0.31) |
0.722 (0.528-0.839) |
0.34 (0.27-0.46) |
|
|
Stable |
2.82 (0.65) |
-0.02 (-0.07-0.04) |
0.856 (0.808-0.893) |
0.24 (0.22-0.27) |
|
|
Worse |
2.54 (0.64) |
-0.09 (-0.22-0.04) |
0.653 (0.489-0.772) |
0.38 (0.32-0.46) |
|
Mental Health |
All |
3.41 (0.89) |
-0.10 (-0.19--0.01) |
0.703 (0.637-0.758) |
0.53 (0.49-0.58) |
|
|
Improved |
3.61 (0.80) |
0.18 (-0.20-0.56) |
0.371 (0.110-0.585) |
0.96 (0.80-1.19) |
|
|
Stable |
3.47 (0.89) |
-0.12 (-0.19-0.04) |
0.847 (0.790-0.888) |
0.34 (0.30-0.39) |
|
|
Worse |
3.09 (0.89) |
-0.27 (-0.41--0.14) |
0.764 (0.573-0.866) |
0.43 (0.33-0.62) |
|
Subscore |
All |
2.85 (0.59) |
-0.01 (-0.05-0.03) |
0.843 (0.805-0.874) |
0.24 (0.22-0.26) |
|
|
Improved |
2.99 (0.51) |
0.19 (0.05-0.34) |
0.611 (0.393-0.762) |
0.38 (0.31-0.51) |
|
|
Stable |
2.91 (0.61) |
-0.03 (-0.07-0.01) |
0.904 (0.871-0.929) |
0.18 (0.17-0.21) |
|
|
Worse |
2.59 (0.52) |
-0.12 (-0.19--0.05) |
0.832 (0.710-0.901) |
0.21 (0.17-0.29) |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
All |
3.10 (0.71) |
0.25 (0.16-0.35) |
0.463 (0.338-0.568) |
0.56 (0.48-0.67) |
|
|
Improved |
3.23 (0.70) |
0.49 (0.26-0.73) |
0.314 (0.028-0.552) |
0.66 (0.47-1.11) |
|
|
Stable |
3.11 (0.65) |
0.24 (0.13-0.35) |
0.475 (0.322-0.601) |
0.50 (0.43-0.62) |
|
|
Worse |
2.98 (0.82) |
0.11 (-0.11-0.33) |
0.504 (0.289-0.670) |
0.59 (0.50-0.72) |
|
Total |
All |
2.87 (0.55) |
0.00 (-0.03-0.04) |
0.874 (0.842-0.901) |
0.20 (0.18-0.22) |
|
|
Improved |
3.01 (0.48) |
0.19 (0.09-0.29) |
0.726 (0.458-0.857) |
0.27 (0.19-0.43) |
|
|
Stable |
2.94 (0.57) |
-0.02 (-0.06-0.02) |
0.905 (0.870-0.930) |
0.17 (0.15-0.19) |
|
|
Worse |
2.60 (0.50) |
-0.09 (-0.16--0.02) |
0.840 (0.737-0.904) |
0.20 (0.17-0.26) |
Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010)
MDC for Appearance = 0.47
MDC for Activity = 0.41
MDC for Pain = 0.33
Mild Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Ambrosini, Rocca, Foti, & Ferrante, 2017; n = 149; mean age = 12.4 (1.1))
Function
Effect size: 1.45
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.57
MIC: 0.70
Pain
Effect size: 1.47
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.43
MIC: 0.70
Mental Health
Effect size: 1.23
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.08
MIC: 0.50
Self-perceived image
Effect size: 1.50
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.58
MIC: 0.40
Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)
Function
Effect size: 1.37
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.42
MIC: 0.60
Pain
Effect size: 1.13
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.17
MIC: 0.40
Mental Health
Effect size: 1.02
Effect size (Guyatt): 0.99
MIC: 0.55
Self-perceived image
Effect size: 1.14
Effect size (Guyatt): 1.04
MIC: 0.60
Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010)
Used ROC–curve derived MCID
For appearance, the change score distinguished between unchanged and better patients, MCID = 0.98
For activity, the change score distinguished between same and increased for patients MCID = 0.08
For pain, the change score distinguished between same and decreased for patients MCID = 0.20
Adult Spinal Deformity: (Crawford, Glassman, Bridwell, Berven, & Carreon, 2015; n = 1321; mean age = 53)
MCID estimate = 0.4. This corresponds to a change of 1 interval in 2 of the 5 questions for a single domain
Adult Spinal Deformity: (Kyr?l? et al., 2017)
Compared with the SRS-30 domain means of the age-sex normative non-scoliotic population data published by Baldus et al. our cohort had significantly lower means in all domains, i.e., 4.1-4.6 versus 2.46-3.11
Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee, Choi, Hwang, & Park, 2017; n = 122; mean age = 14 (2.27); Korean sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.84)
Acceptable for Mental health (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.75)
Poor for Satisfaction with management (ICC = 0.69)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009; n = 51; Dutch sample)
Excellent for Function (ICC = 0.93)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.82)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.79)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.83)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.72)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015; n = 81; mean age = Group 1: 16.78 (4.41), Group 2: 17.35 (4.45); Arabic sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)
Excellent for Pain (ICC = 0.90)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.88)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.84)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.82)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Sathira-Angkura, Pithankuakul, Sakulpipatana, Piyaskulkaew, & Kunakornsawat, 2012; n = 58; mean age = 14.6 (2.8); Thai sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.79)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.84)
Excellent for Mental Health (ICC = 0.90)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.89)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.84)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Niemeyer et al., 2009)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.76)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.85)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.87)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.75)
Acceptable for main score without “only surgically treated patients” (ICC = 0.89)
Acceptable for main score including only surgically treated patients (ICC = 0.88)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Adobor, Rimesl?tten, Keller, & Brox, 2010; n = 57; median age = 21; Norwegian sample)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.87)
Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.87)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.82)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010; n = 84, Persian sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.82)
Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.85)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.79)
Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.81)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao, Zhang, Sun, Du, & Shang, 2007; n = 86; Chinese sample)
Test-retest reliability (ICCs) for Chinese, English, and Spanish versions
|
Domains |
Chinese |
English |
Spanish |
|
Function/Activity |
0.85 |
0.86 |
0.82 |
|
Pain |
0.96 |
0.92 |
0.93 |
|
Self-Image |
0.96 |
0.90 |
0.94 |
|
Mental Health |
0.95 |
0.75 |
0.94 |
|
Satisfaction |
0.91 |
0.88 |
0.98 |
|
Total |
0.98 |
NA |
0.97 |
Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7); NA = not applicable
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012; n = 96, Greek sample)
Test-Retest Reproducibility as Determined by ICC (n = 87)
|
SRS-22r Domain |
ICC |
|
Function/Activity |
0.78 |
|
Pain |
0.81 |
|
Self-Image/Appearance |
0.88 |
|
Mental Health |
0.82 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
0.79 |
Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Baiardi, Calabro, Calabro, & Foti, 2010; n = 223; Italian sample)
SRS-22r-I Repeatability Results (n = 223)
|
SRS-22 Domains |
ICC |
95% CI |
|
Function |
0.995 |
0.994-0.997 |
|
Pain |
0.985 |
0.981-0.989 |
|
Self-Image |
0.965 |
0.954-0.973 |
|
Mental Health |
0.976 |
0.969-0.982 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
0.977 |
0.970-0.982 |
Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.93)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.89)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.86)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.85)
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011; n = 64; mean age = 18.3; Korean sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.83)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.81)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.84)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.88)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.87)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Danielsson et al., 2013; n = 193; mean age = 23.3 (8.9); Swedish sample)
Excellent for Pain (ICC = 0.93)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.78)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.84)
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Alanay et al., 2005; n = 47; mean age = 19.8; Turkish sample)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.82)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.78)
Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.81)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007; n = 48, Mean Age = 16.5; Chinese sample)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.83)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.76)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.79)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.84)
Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.82)
Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates, Burton, Lai, Fraiser, & Asher, 2007; n = 70; mean age = 14.1 (2.7); 48 unoperated idiopathic scoliosis, 3 operated idiopathic scoliosis, 5 congenital scoliosis, 5 neuromuscular scoliosis, 4 spondylolisthesis, 2 scheuermann’s hyper-kyphosis, 2 syndromic scoliosis, 1 scoliosis associated with extremity amelia)
Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)
Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.80)
Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.78)
Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.74)
Not Acceptable for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (ICC = 0.56)
French Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Théroux et al., 2017)
Internal Consistency Comparison
|
Factor |
|
Current Study |
|
|
|
Beausejour |
SRS-22fv |
SRS-18fv |
|
Pain |
0.79 |
0.76 |
0.80 |
|
Self-Image |
0.67 |
0.66 |
0.74 |
|
Function |
0.68 |
0.60 |
0.61 |
|
Mental Health |
0.79 |
0.83 |
0.83 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
0.69 |
0.71 |
0.71 |
Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha >.0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha <0.8 and >0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha <0.7
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Schlosser et al., 2014; n = 135; mean age = 15.1 (2.0); Dutch sample)
Adequate for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85)
Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha =0.78)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71)
Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76)
Poor for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74)
Poor for Satisfaction with management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.48)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009)
Adequate for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)
Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.58)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71)
Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.44)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Sathira-Angkura, Pithankuakul, Sakulpipatana, Piyaskulkaew, & Kunakornsawat, 2012)
Adequate for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)
Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Glowacki et al., 2008; n = 60; mean age = 15.6 (3.8); Polish sample)
Excellent for Functionality (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Excellent for Mental health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)
Adequate for Self-Image Perception (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77)
Poor for Satisfaction with management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Niemeyer et al., 2009; n = 78; German sample)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Adobor et al., 2010)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93)
Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93)
Excellent for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89)
Excellent for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010)
Adequate for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73)
Poor for Self-image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.68)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78)
Adequate for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao et al., 2007)
Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) for Chinese, English, and Spanish versions.
|
Domains |
Chinese |
English |
Spanish |
|
Function/Activity |
0.70 |
0.86 |
0.67 |
|
Pain |
0.80 |
0.92 |
0.81 |
|
Self-Image |
0.80 |
0.73 |
0.73 |
|
Mental Health |
0.88 |
0.90 |
0.83 |
|
Satisfaction |
0.81 |
0.88 |
0.78 |
|
Total |
0.88 |
NA |
0.89 |
Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha >.0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha <0.8 and >0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha <0.7; NA = not applicable
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)
Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha, n = 87)
|
SRS-22 Domain |
Alpha |
SF-36 Domain |
Alpha |
|
Function/Activity |
0.74 |
Physical Function |
0.86 |
|
Pain |
0.84 |
Role – Physical |
0.73 |
|
Self-Image/Appearance |
0.90 |
Bodily Pain |
0.71 |
|
Mental Health |
0.92 |
General Health Perception |
0.76 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
0.66 |
Vitality |
0.74 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.74 |
|
|
Role – Emotional |
0.70 |
||
|
Mental Health |
0.81 |
Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha < 0.8 and > 0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis:(Monticone et al., 2010)
Adequate Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carrico et al., 2012; n = 64, Brazilian Portuguese sample)
Internal Consistency
|
Subdomain |
Number of Items |
Cronbach Alpha |
|
Function |
7 |
0.58 |
|
Pain |
6 |
0.68 |
|
Appearance |
9 |
0.75 |
|
Mental Health |
5 |
0.78 |
|
Satisfaction |
3 |
0.29 |
|
Total SRS-30 |
30 |
0.85 |
SRS-30 = Scoliosis Research Society-30; Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha < 0.8 and > 0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71)
Poor for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73)
Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60)
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011)
Excellent for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83)
Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61)
Adolescent Idiopathic scoliosis (Danielsson & Romberg, 2013)
Test #1
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79)
Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.59)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89)
Adequate for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
Test #2
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78)
Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84)
Adequate for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)
Excellent for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Alanay et al., 2005)
Adequate for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72)
Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72)
Excellent for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83)
Poor for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.48)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)
Excellent for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)
Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78)
Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)
Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.53)
Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates et al., 2007)
Excellent for Function (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82)
Excellent for Pain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
Excellent for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93)
Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71)
Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79)
Predictive Validity
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Parent et al., 2009; n = 227; mean age = 18.6 (9.2); curve severity: < 30 degrees, n = 58; 30-50 degrees n = 66; > 50 degrees n = 34; all others operated)
Poor to Adequate correlation of SRS-22 scores with the internal and external deformity measures was observed in subjects that had received corrective surgery (in the domains of pain, self-image, satisfaction, and total scores) and in those that had not (in the domains of self-image, mental health, satisfaction, and total scores).
Concurrent Validity
Adolescents Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)
Adequate concurrent validity was found by comparing the SRS-22r domains with the relevant PedsQL 4.0 in both the function and the pain domain of the SRS-22r and the physical domain of the PedsQL 4.0.
Adequate concurrent validity was found between the self-image domain with both the physical and the psychological domains of the PedsQL 4.0.
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)
Concurrent Validity of the Arabic Version of SRS-22r Questionnaire Domains with those of SF-36 Questionnaire
|
SF-36 Subscales |
SRS-22r Domains |
||||
|
Function/Activity |
Pain |
Self-Image/Appearance |
Mental Health |
Satisfaction with Management |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.51** |
0.37** |
|
|
|
|
Pain |
0.49** |
0.93* |
0.33** |
0.41** |
0.38* |
|
General Health Perception |
0.44** |
0.49* |
0.53* |
0.54** |
0.58** |
|
Mental Health |
0.57** |
0.43* |
|
0.81** |
0.36* |
|
Role-Physical |
0.45** |
0.56* |
|
|
|
|
Role-Emotional |
|
0.46* |
|
0.36* |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.39* |
|
|
0.35* |
|
|
Vitality |
0.36* |
0.56* |
0.56* |
0.69** |
0.32* |
**correlation significant at < 0.01 level; *correlation significant at < 0.05 level; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30
Adolescent idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)
Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant Subscales of SF-36 as Determined by Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient (n = 87)
|
SRS-22r Domain |
SF-36 Domain |
Spearman’s Rho |
p |
|
Function |
Physical Function |
0.39 |
0.001 |
|
|
Role Physical |
0.51 |
0.001 |
|
|
Bodily Pain |
0.52 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Social Function |
0.41 |
0.001 |
|
Pain |
Physical Function |
0.19 |
0.074 |
|
|
Role Physical |
0.30 |
0.019 |
|
|
Bodily Pain |
0.37 |
0.005 |
|
Self-Image |
Role Physical |
0.43 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
General Health Perception |
0.42 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Vitality |
0.55 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Social Function |
0.53 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Mental Health |
0.63 |
< 0.001 |
|
Mental Health |
General Health Perception |
0.56 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Vitality |
0.76 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Social Function |
0.51 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Mental Health |
0.65 |
< 0.001 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
General Health Perception |
0.34 |
0.001 |
|
|
Vitality |
0.23 |
0.031 |
|
|
Mental Health |
0.20 |
0.064 |
Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.6; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient: 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)
Concurrent Validity of SRS-22r Domains with Relevant SF-36 subscales (n = 223)
|
SRS-22 Domains |
SF-36 Domains |
Pearson r |
|
Function |
Physical Role |
0.34* |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.32* |
|
|
Pain |
0.33* |
|
|
Social Activities |
0.32* |
|
Pain |
Pain |
0.65* |
|
|
Physical Role |
0.40* |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.40* |
|
Self-Image |
General Health |
0.32* |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.42* |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.35* |
|
Mental Health |
Mental Health |
0.79* |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.64* |
|
|
Vitality |
0.54* |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
Physical Functioning |
0.25* |
|
|
Physical Role |
0.14 |
*p < 0.001; SRS = Scoliosis Research Society; SF = Short-Form; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)
Excellent concurrent validity in patients with scoliosis
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Alanay et. al, 2005)
Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant SF-36 Domains as Determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients (n = 47)
|
SRS-22 Domain |
SF-36 Domain |
Pearson r |
p |
|
Function/Activity |
Role-Physical |
0.37 |
0.012 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.63 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Pain Index |
0.37 |
0.011 |
|
|
General Health Perceptions |
0.50 |
< 0.001 |
|
Pain |
Pain Index |
0.75 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Role-Physical |
0.49 |
0.001 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.53 |
< 0.001 |
|
Self-Image/Appearance |
General Health Perceptions |
0.65 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.49 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.34 |
0.021 |
|
Mental Health |
Mental Health Index |
0.81 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.68 |
< 0.001 |
|
|
Vitality |
0.70 |
< 0.001 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
Physical Functioning |
0.27 |
0.074 |
|
|
Role-Physical |
0.42 |
0.004 |
|
|
Pain Index |
0.38 |
0.009 |
|
|
General Health Perceptions |
0.50 |
< 0.001 |
Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Danielsson & Romberg, 2013)
|
SRS-22 Domain |
n |
SF-36 Domain |
Pearson r |
p |
|
Pain |
141 |
Bodily Pain |
0.74 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Role Physical |
0.45 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.50 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Function |
141 |
Role Physical |
0.56 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.53 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
Bodily Pain |
0.41 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
General Health |
0.36 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Self-Image |
141 |
General Health |
0.47 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.41 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.36 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Mental Health |
141 |
Mental Health |
0.88 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.61 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
Vitality |
0.74 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
|
Role Emotional |
0.58 |
< 0.0001 |
|
|
Management Satisfaction |
132 |
Physical Functioning |
0.20 |
0.0200 |
|
|
Role Physical |
0.08 |
0.3355 |
|
|
|
Bodily Pain |
0.27 |
0.0016 |
|
|
|
General Health |
0.27 |
0.0019 |
SRS-22 = Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)
Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant SF-36 Domains as Determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients (n = 50)
|
SRS-22 Domain |
SF-36 Domain |
Pearson r |
|
Function/Activity |
Role-Physical |
0.77 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.73 |
|
|
Pain Index |
0.62 |
|
|
General Health Perceptions |
0.59 |
|
Pain |
Pain Index |
0.72 |
|
|
Role-Physical |
0.54 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.68 |
|
Self-Image/Appearance |
General Health Perceptions |
0.62 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.59 |
|
|
Physical Functioning |
0.50 |
|
Mental Health |
Mental Health Index |
0.67 |
|
|
Social Functioning |
0.57 |
|
|
Vitality |
0.66 |
|
Satisfaction with Management |
Physical Functioning |
0.25* |
|
|
Role-Physical |
0.24* |
|
|
Pain Index |
0.18* |
|
|
General Health Perceptions |
0.49 |
Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30; *Not significant (p > 0.05)
Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates, Burton, Lai, Frasier, & Asher, 2007)
Concurrent Validity with the CHQ-CF 87 Domains
|
SRS-22r Domain |
Relevant CHQ-CF 87 Domains |
Pearson r |
|
Function |
Physical Function |
0.73* |
|
|
Family Activity |
0.71* |
|
|
Role Physical |
0.54* |
|
|
General Health |
0.52* |
|
Pain |
Bodily Pain |
0.82* |
|
|
Family Activity |
0.45* |
|
|
Physical Function |
0.42(t) |
|
|
General Health |
0.41(t) |
|
Self-Image |
General Health |
0.50* |
|
|
Mental Health |
0.48* |
|
|
Family Cohesion |
0.47* |
|
|
Self-Esteen |
0.50* |
|
Mental Health |
Mental Health |
0.68* |
|
|
Self-Esteem |
0.59* |
|
|
Behavior |
0.63* |
|
|
Family Cohesion |
0.53* |
|
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction |
Bodily Pain |
0.29(T) |
|
|
Self-Esteem |
0.30(T) |
|
|
Global Behavior (single item) |
0.29(T) |
*p < 0.0001; (t) p < 0.0005; (T) p < 0.05; Excellent Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient < 0.3
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Parent et al., 2009)
Adequate to Excellent correlation with pain scores for subjects treated with a brace than for those pre-surgery
Adequate to Excellent correlation with Self-Image for pre-surgery subjects than for subjects under observation or for those post-surgery
Adequate correlation to Satisfaction for patients treated with a brace than for those under observation or pre-surgery
Adequate correlation to Satisfaction for patients post-surgery patients than for those under observation or pre-surgery
Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for the function scores
Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for the mental health scores
Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for total scores
Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of function score
Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of pain score
Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of self-image score
Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of mental health score
Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in total score
Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the domain of pain score.
Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the domain self-image score.
Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the total score
Poor correlation with differences in satisfaction were found between the subgroups of different curve severity
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)
Adequate discriminant validity
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Danielsson et al., 2013)
|
SRS-22 Domain |
n |
Pearson r |
p |
|
Pain |
175 |
-0.12 |
0.11 |
|
Function |
175 |
-0.07 |
0.37 |
|
Self-Image |
175 |
-0.21 |
< 0.01 |
|
Mental Health |
175 |
0.04 |
0.60 |
|
Management Satisfaction |
160 |
-0.24 |
< 0.01 |
|
Total without Satisfaction |
175 |
-0.12 |
0.12 |
|
Total Score |
160 |
-0.13 |
0.09 |
Excellent Construct Validity: correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate Construct Validity: correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor Construct Validity: correlation coefficient < 0.3
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Climent et al., 2005; n = 175; mean age = 18.9; Spanish sample)
Poor correlation between age and function/activity (r = -0.29)
Adequate correlation between age and pain (r = -0.41)
Poor correlation between age and self- image (r = -0.28)
Adequate correlation between age and mental health (r = -0.33)
Poor correlation between age and satisfaction (r = -0.30)
Adequate correlation between age and total score (r = -0.43; p < 0.01)
Adequate correlation between the age at which surgery and pain (r = -0.33, p < 0.01)
Poor correlation between the age at which surgery and mental health (r = -0.28; p < 0.01)
Adequate correlation between the age at which surgery and total score (r = -0.32; p < 0.01)
Excellent Convergent validity was found by comparing data from the SRS-22 and the QLPSD profile (r = 0.84; p < 0.001).
Excellent convergent validity between the SRS-22 and QLSDP (r = 0.84)
Adequate construct validity with the classic variables of the condition
Adequate discriminant validity with the classic variables of the condition
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Théroux et al., 2017)
Floor
Excellent for Pain (0%)
Excellent for Self-Image (0%)
Excellent for Function (0%)
Excellent for Mental Health (0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (1.7%)
Ceiling
Poor for Pain (22.8%)
Adequate for Self-Image (5.4%)
Adequate for Function (0.9%)
Adequate for Mental Health (11.1%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (17.1%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Schlosser et al., 2014)
Floor
Adequate for Pain (1%)
Excellent for Self-Image (0%)
Excellent for Function (0%)
Excellent for Mental Health (0%)
Excellent for Satisfaction with Management (0%)
Ceiling
Poor for Pain (20%)
Adequate for Self-Image (4%)
Poor for Function (33%)
Adequate for Mental Health (8%)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (22%)
Adolescents Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)
Floor
Adequate for Function (0.8%)
Adequate for Pain (1.6%)
Adequate for Self-image (0.8%)
Adequate for Mental health (0.8%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with management (0.8%)
Ceiling
Poor for Function (37.7%)
Poor for Pain (33.6%)
Adequate for Self-image (1.6%)
Adequate for Mental Health (5.7%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with management (8.2%)
Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009)
Floor
Adequate for Pain (2%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2%)
Adequate for Function (2%)
Adequate for Mental Health (2%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (2%)
Ceiling
Adequate for Pain (9.8%)
Adequate for Self-Image (13.7%)
Adequate for Function (7.8%)
Adequate for Mental Health (2%)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (37.3%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)
Floor
Adequate for Pain (2.4%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.4%)
Adequate for Function (2.4%)
Adequate for Mental Health (4.9%)
Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (4.9%)
Ceiling
Adequate for Pain (14.6%)
Adequate for Self-Image (4.9%)
Adequate for Function (4.9%)
Adequate for Mental Health (2.4%)
Poor for Satisfaction with Management (26.8%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Glowacki et al., 2008)
Floor
Adequate for all domains (1.7%)
Ceiling
Poor for Pain (20.7%)
Adequate for Self-Image (8.6%)
Adequate for Function (5.2%)
Adequate for Mental health (15.5%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Adobor et al., 2010)
Floor
Excellent for Pain (0%)
Adequate for Self-Image (1.8%)
Excellent for Function (0%)
Excellent for Mental Health (0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (4.2%)
Ceiling
Adequate for Pain (10.5%)
Excellent for Self-Image (0%)
Excellent for Function (0%)
Adequate for Mental Health (10.0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (7.3%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010)
Floor
Adequate for all domains (2.8%)
Ceiling:
Adequate for Function (2.8%)
Adequate for Pain (16.1%)
Adequate for Self-image (2.8%)
Adequate for Mental Health (5.8%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (19.4%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Carabalona, Negrini, 2004; n = 55, Italian sample)
Floor
Adequate for Function (5.7%)
Poor for Pain (25.7%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.9%)
Adequate for Mental Health (11.4%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (2.9%)
Ceiling
Poor for Function (48.6%)
Poor for Pain (74.3%)
Adequate for Self-Image (8.6%)
Poor for Mental Health (34.3%)
Poor for Satisfaction (20.0%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao et al., 2007)
Floor
Adequate for Function (2.3%)
Adequate for Pain (7.0%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.3%)
Adequate for Mental Health (4.7%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (2.3%)
Ceiling
Adequate for Function (2.3%)
Adequate for Pain (15.1%)
Adequate for Self-Image (4.7%)
Adequate for Mental Health (5.8%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (2.3%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)
Floor:
Adequate for all domains (1.1%)
Ceiling
Poor for Function (52.9%)
Adequate for Pain (18.4%)
Adequate for Self-Image (11.5%)
Adequate for Mental Health (8.0%)
Poor for Satisfaction (31.0%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)
Floor
Excellent for Function (0%)
Excellent for Pain (0%)
Excellent for Self-Image (0%)
Excellent for Mental health (0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (1.2%)
Ceiling
Excellent for Function (0%)
Adequate for Pain (19.4%)
Adequate for Self-Image (1.1%)
Adequate for Mental health (8.0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (9.4%)
Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011)
Floor Effects
Adequate for Function (1.2%)
Adequate for Pain (1.2%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.4%)
Adequate for Mental Health (1.2%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (2.4%)
Ceiling effects
Poor for Function (31.3%)
Poor for Pain (24.1%)
Adequate for Self-Image (4.8%)
Adequate for Mental Health (12.0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (8.4%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Danielsson et al., 2013)
Floor
Adequate for Pain (0.5%)
Adequate for Self-image (0.5%)
Adequate for Function (0.5%)
Adequate for Mental Health (0.5%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (1.7%)
Ceiling
Poor for Pain (28%)
Adequate for Self-Image (5.7%)
Poor for Function (21.8%)
Adequate for Mental Health (11.9%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (17.4%)
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)
Floor
Adequate for Function (2.0%)
Adequate for Pain (2.0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (2.0%)
Adequate for Self-Image (4.0%)
Adequate for Mental health (4.0%)
Ceiling
Poor for Function (44.0%)
Poor for Pain (30.0%)
Adequate for Satisfaction (10.0%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.0%)
Adequate for Mental Health (18.0%)
Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates et al., 2007)
Floor Effects
Adequate for Function (1.4%)
Adequate for Pain (1.4%)
Adequate for Self-Image (2.9%)
Adequate for Mental Health (1.4%)
Adequate for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (3.4%)
Ceiling Effects
Poor for Function (47.1%)
Poor for Pain (27.1%)
Adequate for Self-Image (12.9%)
Poor for Mental Health (21.4%)
Poor for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (24.1%)
Mild Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)
Large responsiveness for all domains
Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)
Large to Moderate responsiveness
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)
Large responsiveness
Adobor, R. D., Rimesl?tten, S., Keller, A., & Brox, J. I. (2010). Repeatability, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire and EuroQoL in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 35(2), 206-209.
Alanay, A., Cil, A., Berk, H., Acaroglu, R., Yazici, M., Akcali, O., & ... Surat, A. (2005). Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine30(21), 2464-2468.
Antonarakos, P. D., Katranitsa, L., Angelis, L., Paganas, A., Koen, E. M., Christodoulou, E. A., & Christodoulou, A. G. (2009). Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of scoliosis research society - 22 (SRS-22) questionnaire.
Carreon, L. Y., Sanders, J. O., Diab, M., Sucato, D. J., Sturm, P. F., & Glassman, S. D. (2010). The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain Domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 35(23), 2079-2083.
Carrico, F., Meves, R., Avanzi, O. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of an adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of Scoliosis Research Society–30 questionnaire. Spine, 37(1), E60-E63.
Cheung, K. C., Senkoylu, A., Alanay, A., Genc, Y., Lau, S., & Luk, K. D. (2007). Reliability and concurrent validity of the Adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine (03622436), 32(10), 1141-1145.
Climent, J. M. (2005). Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) patient questionnaire. Spine, 30(6), 705-709.
Crawford, C. H., Glassman, S. D., Bridwell, K. H., Berven, S. H., & Carreon, L. Y. (2015). The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine, 40(6), E377-E381.
Danielsson, A. J., & Romberg, K. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Swedish version of the Scoliosis Research Society--22 (SRS-22r) patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 38(21), 1875-1884.
Glattes, H. C., Burton, D. C., Lai, S. M., Frasier, E., & Asher, M. A. (2007). The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine, 32(16), 1778-1784.
Glowacki, M., Misterska, E., Laurentowska, M., & Mankowski, P. (2009). Polish adaptation of scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire. Spine, 34(10), 1060-1065.
Haidar, R. K., Kassak, K., Masrouha, K., Ibrahim, K., & Mhaidli, H. (2015). Reliability and validity of an adapted Arabic version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r Questionnaire. Spine, 40(17), E971-E977.
Lee, J., Lee, D., Suh, K., Kim, J., Lim, J., & Goh, T. (2011). Validation of the Korean version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. European Spine Journal, 20(10), 1751-1756.
Lee, H., Choi, J., Hwang, J. H., & Park, J. H. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Revised questionnaire among adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.
Lonjon. G., Ilharreborde, B., Odent, T., Moreau., S., Glorion, C., Mazda K. (2014). Reliability and validity of the French-Canadian version of the scoliosis research society 22 questionnaire in France. Spine, 39(1), E26-E34.
Kyr?l?, K., J?rvenp??, S., Ylinen, J., Mecklin, J., Repo, J., & H?kkinen, A. (2017). Reliability and validity study of the Finnish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire version SRS-30. Spine, 42(12), 943-949.
Monticone, M., Ambrosini, E., Rocca, B., Foti, C., & Ferrante, S. (2017). Responsiveness and minimal important changes of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire in subjects with mild adolescent and moderate adult idiopathic scoliosis undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Spine, 42(11), E672-E679.
Monticone, M., Baiardi, P., Calabro, D., Calabro, F., Foti, C. (2010). Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: Cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine, 35(24), E1412-E1417.
Monticone, M., Carabalona, R., Negrini, S. (2004). Reliability of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities. Europa Medicophysica, 40(3), 191-197.
Mousavi, S. J., Mobini, B., Mehdian, H., Akbarnia, B., Bouzari, B., Askary-Ashtiani, A., & ... Parnianpour, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire. Spine, 35(7), 784-789.
Niemeyer, T., Schubert, C., Halm, H. F., Herberts, T., Leichtle, C., & Gesicki, M. (2009). Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine, 34(8), 818-821.
Parent, E. C., Hill, D., Mahood, J., Moreau, M., Raso, J., & Lou, E. (2009). Discriminative and predictive validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire in management and curve-severity subgroups of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 34(22), 2450-2457.
Potoupnis, M., Papavasiliou, K., Kenanidis, E., Pellios, S., Kapetanou, A., . . . Kapetanos, G. (2012). Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Greek version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire: A cross-sectional study performed on conservatively treated patients. Hippokratia, 16(3), 225-229.
Sathira-Angkura, V., Pithankuakul, K., Sakulpipatana, S., Piyaskulkaew, C., & Kunakornsawat, S. (2012). Validity and reliability of an adapted Thai version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 37(9), 783-787.
Schl?sser, T. P., Stadhouder, A., Schimmel, J. J., Lehr, A. M., van der Heijden, G. J., & Castelein, R. M. (2014). Reliability and validity of the adapted Dutch version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society 22-item questionnaire. Spine Journal, 14(8), 1663-1672.
Théroux, J., Stomski, N., Innes, S., Ballard, A., Khadra, C., . . . & Le May, S. (2017). Revisiting the psychometric properties of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) French version. Scoliosis & Spinal Disorders, 12(21), 121-127.
Zhao, L., Zhang, Y., Sun, X., Du, Q., & Shang, L. (2007). The Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire adapted for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients in China: Reliability and validity analysis. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, 1(6), 351-355.
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.