These data provide both validation and st and ards for other users and indicate the power of the instrument for detecting change in sample population s. CONCLUSIONS The  ODI  remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure .
The behavior of the instrument is incompletely understood , particularly in sensitivity to real change
STUDY DESIGN The Oswestry Disability Index ( ODI ) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders .
This review is based on publications using the ODI identified from the authors ' personal data bases , the Science Citation Index , and h and search es of Spine and current textbooks of spinal disorders .
OBJECTIVES To review the versions of this instrument , document methods by which it has been vali date d , collate data from scores found in normal and back pain population s , provide curves for power calculations in studies using the ODI , and maintain the ODI as a gold st and ard outcome measure .
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA It has now been 20 years since its original publication .
More than 200 citations exist in the Science Citation Index .
Relationship of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain.
OBJECTIVE To determine the relationship between overall disability in daily activities , assessed with the Pain Disability Index ( PDI ) and the Oswestry Disability Question naire ( ODQ ) , and impaired performance on three physical tests in patients with chronic low-back pain . DESIGN AND SUBJECTS The PDI and ODQ were administered in a cross-sectional study , before beginning a back rehabilitation program , to 45 patients with low-back pain of > or = 3 months ' duration , with or without radiation to the legs . All patients also performed repetitive sit-up , arch-up , and squatting tests . SETTING Tertiary care center . RESULTS Modestly significant ( p < 0.05 ) or significant ( p < 0.01 ) inverse correlations ( Pearson 's r = 0.30 - 0.41 ) were noted between the PDI and the ODQ and all three physical performance tests . When normative data were used , the correlation ( Spearman 's rs = -0.45 ) between PDI and the squatting test remained significant ( p < 0.01 ) , whereas it was modestly significant ( rs = -0.33 , p < 0.05 ) between the ODQ and squatting test and between the PDI and arch-up test ( rs = -0.35 , p < 0.05 ) . Compared with patients presently working , those on sick leave had significantly higher scores on the PDI and ODQ ( Wilcoxon 's two- sample test : p < 0.001 ) and also significantly worse performance on all physical tests ( p < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS The PDI and ODQ , as measures of self-perceived disability , and impaired performance on repetitive squatting , arch-up , and sit-up tests , as measures of physical capability , show some overlap in low-back-pain patients . Both types of disability measures are clearly influenced by the patient 's work status
These data provide both validation and st and ards for other users and indicate the power of the instrument for detecting change in sample population s. CONCLUSIONS The  ODI  remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure .
The behavior of the instrument is incompletely understood , particularly in sensitivity to real change
STUDY DESIGN The Oswestry Disability Index ( ODI ) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders .
This review is based on publications using the ODI identified from the authors ' personal data bases , the Science Citation Index , and h and search es of Spine and current textbooks of spinal disorders .
OBJECTIVES To review the versions of this instrument , document methods by which it has been vali date d , collate data from scores found in normal and back pain population s , provide curves for power calculations in studies using the ODI , and maintain the ODI as a gold st and ard outcome measure .
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA It has now been 20 years since its original publication .
More than 200 citations exist in the Science Citation Index .