Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2025

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test MSPT: An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool
Published on: June 30, 2014
Development of a mapping function ("crosswalk") for the conversion of scores between the Oswestry Disability Index
A F Mannion1, A Elfering2, T F Fekete3
1Spine Center Division, Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. anne.mannion@yahoo.com.
Introduction:
The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) are two commonly used self-rating outcome instruments in patients with lumbar spinal disorders. No formal crosswalk between them exists that would otherwise allow the scores of one to be interpreted in terms of the other. We aimed to create such a mapping function.
Methods:
We performed a secondary analysis of ODI and COMI data previously collected from 3324 patients (57 ± 17y; 60.3% female) at baseline and 1y after surgical or conservative treatment. Correlations between scores and Cohen's kappa for agreement (κ) regarding achievement of the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score on each instrument (ODI, 12.8 points; COMI, 2.2 points) were calculated, and regression models were built. The latter were tested for accuracy in an independent set of registry data from 634 patients (60 ± 15y; 56.8% female).
Results:
All pairs of measures were significantly positively correlated (baseline, 0.73; 1y follow-up (FU), 0.84; change-scores, 0.73). MCIC for COMI was achieved in 53.9% patients and for ODI, in 52.4%, with 78% agreement on an individual basis (κ = 0.56). Standard errors for the regression slopes and intercepts were low, indicating excellent prediction at the group level, but root mean square residuals (reflecting individual error) were relatively high. ODI was predicted as COMI × 7.13-4.20 (at baseline), COMI × 6.34 + 2.67 (at FU) and COMI × 5.18 + 1.92 (for change-score); COMI was predicted as ODI × 0.075 + 3.64 (baseline), ODI × 0.113 + 0.96 (FU), and ODI × 0.102 + 1.10 (change-score). ICCs were 0.63-0.87 for derived versus actual scores.
Conclusion:
Predictions at the group level were very good and met standards justifying the pooling of data. However, we caution against using individual values for treatment decisions, e.g. attempting to monitor patients over time, first with one instrument and then with the other, due to the lower statistical precision at the individual level. The ability to convert scores via the developed mapping function should open up more centres/registries for collaboration and facilitate the combining of data in meta-analyses.
More Related Videos
07:44Evaluation of Patients' Posture and Gait Profile After Lumbar Fusion Surgery by Video Rasterstereography and Treadmill Gait Analysis
Published on: March 23, 2019
11:29Measuring the Functional Abilities of Children Aged 3-6 Years Old with Observational Methods and Computer Tools
Published on: June 20, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Ordinal Level of Measurement
Data measured using an ordinal scale are similar to nominal scale data, but there is one major difference. The ordinal scale data can be ordered. An example of ordinal scale data is a list of the top five national parks...
Introduction to z Scores
z scores...
Measures of Intelligence
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it claims to measure. An intelligence test should accurately assess intelligence rather than another characteristic, like anxiety. Criterion validity is one way to evaluate this;...
Wechsler's Contribution to Measures of Intelligence
z Scores and Area Under the Curve
Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Matched Pairs