Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

MANAGING MISSING SCORES ON THE ROLAND MORRIS DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

The 27th annual ACM SI/GUCCS conference



Abstract

Background and purpose

It is likely that the most common method for calculating a Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDQ) sum score is to simply ignore any unanswered questions. In contrast, the raw sum score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is converted to a 0-100 scale, with the advantage of allowing missing data to be accommodated by proportional recalculation. The aim of this study was to quantify the calculation error in RMDQ scores when one or more questions were unanswered and compare this with the error present when the ODI was scored in the same way.

Methods and results

The prevalence of unanswered RMDQ questions was measured in a research and a routine care setting. The accuracy of the RMDQ proportional recalculation method was measured using 311 fully completed RMDQ and matching ODI questionnaire sets. Raw sum scores were calculated, and questions systematically dropped. At each stage, sum scores were converted to a score on a 0-100 scale and the error calculated. Wilcoxon Tests were used to compare the magnitude of the error scores.

The prevalence of unanswered questions was 29.5% (RMDQ) in routine care, and 13.9% (ODI) and 20.3% (RMDQ) in a research project. Proportional recalculation was a more accurate method to calculate RMDQ sum scores than simply ignoring missing data.

Conclusions

The practice of expressing RMDQ scores as a standardized score allows missing data to be accommodated by proportional recalculation and is as valid for the RMDQ as it is for the ODI.

Conflicts of interest: None

Sources of funding: None