| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Revised Leeds Disability Questionnaire (RLDQ) | |
| First Description |
|
|
| Year | 1994 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Physical function |
| Population/Disease | Disease specific |
| Originally developed for | Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | English, Italian, Swedish |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Abbott CA |
| Title | Functional assessment in ankylosing spondylitis: Evaluation of a new self-administered questionnaire and correlation with anthropometric variables. |
| Journal | Br J Rheumatol |
| Year | 1994 |
| Vol | 33 |
| Num | 11 |
| Pages | 1060-6 |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12022361 |
| Brief Description |
Measuring disability in ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index with revised Leeds Disability Questionnaire. |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7981994 |
| Brief Description |
Functional assessment in ankylosing spondylitis: Evaluation of a new self-administered questionnaire and correlation with anthropometric variables (English). |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11028846 |
| Brief Description |
Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Revised Leeds Disability Questionnaire for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15757970 |
| Brief Description |
Validity and reliability of an Italian version of the revised Leeds disability questionnaire for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Dr Philip Helliwell |
| p.helliwell@leeds.ac.uk | |
| Address | : Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, Section of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, 2nd Floor, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Harehills Lane, Leeds, LS7 4SA, UK |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links |
The LDQ/RLDQ questionnaire is outlined in the original manuscript. |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Questionnaire |
| Brief Description |
Patient self-administered questionnaire used to assess disability. It includes 4 sections (mobility, bending down, neck movements and posture), each one of them with 4 items. The RLDQ was published in the same article as the LDQ. The RLDQ excludes 3 questions the LDQ since these 3 items seldom caused difficulty and showed little change with treatment. |
| Number of Items | 16 |
| Range | Method 1: 0-3. Method 2: 0-48. |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes Responses are 0 = able to do without difficulty; 1 = able to do with difficulty; 2 = only able to do using unusual movements or gadgets; and 3 = unable to do. |
| Developed for | Both |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
Method 1 (initially described): Each individual item is scored from 0-3 and within each section (4 sections) and the highest score is recorded. The total score is divided by the number of sections answered, giving an overall score between 0 and 3.
Method 2: Assigns a score of 0–3 for each item and simply sums all item scores, giving a score range of 0–48. |
| Score Interpretation | Higher score indicates higher impairment or worse function. Rasch analysis has indicated that method 2 of scoring (0-48 score range) provides better psychometric properties for the instrument. |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 0 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | 0 minutes |
| Training to score | Two methods of scoring described. Method 2 (o-48 scale) has better psychometric properties. |
| Strengths | --- |
| Limitations | Floor effect |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments |
In a study comparing BASFI and RLDQ the following results were found:
Both instruments were found to be unidimensional according to the Rasch model, but the BASFI had more items displaying differential item functioning. Category disordering was apparent with the BASFI but not the RLDQ. However, both instruments displayed disordered item thresholds. Neither instrument can be used as an interval measure. Both measures had “towers” of thresholds whereby several thresholds were marking the same point on the underlying disability construct. This was particularly notable in the case of the BASFI. |