Document Detail

Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 4. Establishment of equations for severity scores. Subcommittee on low back pain and cervical myelopathy, evaluation of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  18274852     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: To establish a patient-oriented outcome measure for cervical myelopathy, a subcommittee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) developed a new scoring system to evaluate the overall clinical status of patients, which could be completed by patients themselves. The subcommittee completed three large-scale studies to select and modify questions derived from various preexisting outcome measures including Short Form-36, and then finalized and validated the questionnaire, which comprised 24 questions. METHODS: The finalized questionnaire was administered to 369 patients with cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation, spondylosis, or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament by randomly selected board-certified spine surgeons. Patients with different severities of myelopathy were included to insure accuracy and responsiveness of this questionnaire against patients' different neurological status. RESULTS: Data of 236 patients were employed and were subjected to rigorous statistical analyses. There was no question that was difficult to answer and distribution of answers for each question was not concentrated to one choice, indicating the appropriateness of all 24 questions. Results of factor analysis suggested that the 24 questions could be divided into five different factors or functional domains. The factors were defined as follows: factor 1, lower extremity function; factor 2, quality of life; factor 3, cervical spine function; factor 4, bladder function; and factor 5, upper extremity function. Finally, equations that would yield scores for the five factors were assembled. The score to be used to represent the degree of patients' disability or status in each domain can be calculated by multiplying prefixed numbers of selected answers to questions by preassigned coefficients. Coefficients were defined to make the minimum score 0 and the maximum score 100. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully established a questionnaire that is able to demonstrate the status of patients suffering cervical myelopathy from five different aspects represented by five intuitive numerical scores. The final issue to be confirmed is the responsiveness of this questionnaire to changes in patients' status after various surgical and nonsurgical treatments.
Authors:
Mitsuru Fukui; Kazuhiro Chiba; Mamoru Kawakami; Shinichi Kikuchi; Shinichi Konno; Masabumi Miyamoto; Atsushi Seichi; Tadashi Shimamura; Osamu Shirado; Toshihiko Taguchi; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Katsushi Takeshita; Toshikazu Tani; Yoshiaki Toyama; Kazuo Yonenobu; Eiji Wada; Takashi Tanaka; Yoshio Hirota
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial     Date:  2008-02-16
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association     Volume:  13     ISSN:  0949-2658     ISO Abbreviation:  J Orthop Sci     Publication Date:  2008 Jan 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2008-02-15     Completed Date:  2008-05-06     Revised Date:  2010-09-21    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9604934     Medline TA:  J Orthop Sci     Country:  Japan    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  25-31     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Statistics, Osaka City University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Cervical Vertebrae
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Japan
Male
Middle Aged
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Quality of Life
Questionnaires*
Recovery of Function / physiology
Reproducibility of Results
Severity of Illness Index*
Spinal Cord Diseases / etiology,  physiopathology*,  therapy
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Orthop Sci
ISSN: 0949-2658
ISSN: 1436-2023
Publisher: Springer-Verlag, Tokyo
Article Information
Download PDF
? The Japanese Orthopaedic Association 2008
Received Day: 3 Month: 7 Year: 2007
Accepted Day: 19 Month: 10 Year: 2007
Electronic publication date: Day: 16 Month: 2 Year: 2008
Print publication date: Month: 1 Year: 2008
Volume: 13 Issue: 1
First Page: 25 Last Page: 31
ID: 2779373
PubMed Id: 18274852
Publisher Id: 1194
DOI: 10.1007/s00776-007-1194-2
issue-copyright-statement: ? The Japanese Orthopaedic Association 2008

Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 4. Establishment of equations for severity scores : Subcommittee on low back pain and cervical myelopathy, evaluation of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association
Mitsuru Fukui1
Kazuhiro Chiba2
Mamoru Kawakami3
Shinichi Kikuchi4
Shinichi Konno4
Masabumi Miyamoto5
Atsushi Seichi6
Tadashi Shimamura7
Osamu Shirado8
Toshihiko Taguchi9
Kazuhisa Takahashi10
Katsushi Takeshita6
Toshikazu Tani11
Yoshiaki Toyama2
Kazuo Yonenobu12
Eiji Wada13
Takashi Tanaka14
Yoshio Hirota15
1Laboratory of Statistics, Osaka City University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 160-8582 Japan
3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
5Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
6Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
7Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan
8Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saitama Medical School, Saitama, Japan
9Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yamaguchi University School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Japan
10Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
11Department of Orthopaedics, Kochi Medical School, Kochi, Japan
12Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hoshigaoka Koseinenkin Hospital, Osaka, Japan
13National Hospital Organization, Osaka-Minami Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
14Department of Internal Medicine, Houai Hospital, Osaka, Japan
15Department of Public Health, Osaka City University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan

Introduction

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for the evaluation of cervical myelopathy (JOA score) was first established by a committee of the JOA chaired by Hirabayashi.1 Since then, this scoring system has been accepted universally in Japan as a tool to measure the outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for various cervical spinal disorders that cause cervical myelopathy. The JOA score first appeared in the English literature in 1980 when Hirabayashi published an article describing surgical results in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine (OPLL) that underwent expansive open-door laminoplasty.2 The JOA score underwent the first revision in 1994 to reflect the deficits in shoulder and elbow functions, which are often caused by cervical root lesions, and this revised version was officially translated into English.3 Various modified versions of the JOA score have also been introduced in the western countries.4?6

The JOA score is a disease-specific and physicianoriented system that mainly assesses the neurological status of the patient and enables surgeons to compare the changes in the neurological status of the patient before and after certain treatments. Due to emerging needs to evaluate the impairments in patients? activities of daily living (ADL), which is related directly to their quality of life (QOL), various patient-oriented outcome measures, for example, the Short Form (SF)-36, have been developed and adopted into clinical practices in different medical fields.7 To take up such needs, the JOA together with the Japanese Society of Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR), formerly called the Japanese Spine Research Society (JSRS), has appointed several members of the Clinical Outcomes Committee of the JOA to organize a subcommittee, the aim of which is to develop a completely new patient-oriented scoring system for the evaluation of clinical results in patients with back pain and cervical myelopathy. The subcommittee decided to construct a self-rating questionnaire that could be filled out by patients themselves. Candidates of the questions to be included in the questionnaire were selected and modified from various preexisting outcome measures including the SF-36, the Rolland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Oswestry Disability Index.8,9 The subcommittee completed three large-scale studies to select and validate the questions that would ultimately become parts of the new JOA scoring system and as a result, the questionnaires including 25 and 24 questions for the evaluation of back pain and cervical myelopathy respectively were finalized.10?12 In the present study, the cervical version of the finalized questionnaires was administered to patients with cervical myelopathy of different severity to insure the accuracy and responsiveness of this questionnaire and the obtained data were subjected to factor analysis in order to divide the 24 questions into different functional domains. The titles of the domains were designated according to the context of the questions in each domain. Finally, the equations that would yield scores based on the answers to the questions, selected by the patients, in the different domains were established. The scores would represent the degree of patient disability in the functional domains.


Materials and methods

The subcommittee randomly chose 369 out of 829 board-certified spine surgeons who were registered in the JSSR database and asked them to participate in the present survey. Each surgeon was asked to administer the questionnaire to patients with cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation, spondylosis, or OPLL. The surgeons were required to include at least one patient each with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy according to the discretion of each surgeon. Patients with (1) myelopathy due to nondegenerative diseases, such as trauma, tumor, and rheumatoid arthritis; (2) other musculoskeletal diseases that would affect the evaluation of myelopathy; (3) difficulties filling the questionnaire due to their specific physical (e.g., defects or impairments in the limbs) or mental conditions (e.g., dementia, disorientation); and (4) a history of previous spinal surgery, were excluded from the analysis. Those who participated in our previous studies were also excluded. The surgeons were also asked to assess the neurological status of the patients using the original JOA scoring system. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the JSSR, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. The completed questionnaires and the results of the original JOA scoring system were collected and sent to the independent central organization where biostatisticians compiled the results and input patient data into a spreadsheet. Rigorous statistical analyses including factor analysis were performed using SPSS software (Version 12, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).


Results

Three hundred and sixty-nine patients were initially recruited for this survey. Among them, 106 patients were excluded because they had other musculoskeletal disorders that could affect the evaluation of cervical myelopathy. Most of them had nonspecific low-back pain without neurological symptoms (n = 70) and mild knee joint pain due to osteoarthritis (n = 22). Twenty-six patients gave no answers to one or more questions and were also excluded. One other patient was excluded because of the discretion of the surgeon in charge. The data of the remaining 236 patients were employed. The sex and age distributions of patients and the distributions of the scores for different subdomains in the original JOA scoring system are given in Tables 1 and 2. Because the majority of the excluded patients were those having other musculoskeletal diseases due to spondylosis or osteoarthritis, the average age was significantly higher in the excluded patients than those that were included. The average scores for shoulder/elbow function and lower motor function in the JOA scoring system were significantly lower in the excluded patients than those for the included subjects.

The incidence of unanswered questions was less than 5%, indicating that there was no question that was difficult to answer. There also was no question for which the distribution of the answer was concentrated to one choice (Table 3), indicating the appropriateness of all 24 questions.

Results of factor analysis revealed that there were six common factors whose eigenvalues exceeded 1.0, which are thought to be the factor having significant contributions to the result. We decided to employ the first five factors because the cumulative contribution rate of the first five factors reached 60% and the contribution of the sixth factor was less than 5% (Table 4).

According to the calculation of the factor loadings after orthogonal rotation using the direct oblimin method with the Kaiser normalization, correlations among the 24 questions and the selected five factors were reexamined. When the maximum factor loading of a question exceeded 0.40, that question was supposed to be correlated with the factor. All 24 questions were judged to have correlation with at least one of the five factors, except for Q1-4 and Q1-12. Q1-4 had relatively higher factor loadings for both factor 1 and 5 and this question was judged to be correlated with both factors. Q1-12 was first judged to be weakly correlated with factor 5 with a factor loading of 0.37; however, the committee decided to correlate this question also to factor 3 after reading the context of the question and given that the factor loading of 0.32 was also moderately high (Table 5).

According to the interpretations of the context of the questions that were divided into the five factors, each factor was categorized as follows; factor 1: lower extremity function; factor 2: quality of life; factor 3: cervical spine function; factor 4: bladder function; and factor 5: upper extremity function.

To establish an equation to calculate the individual score for each factor/domain that would intuitively indicate the status of a patient with regard to the designated function, the questions that had the maximum absolute factor loading value were used to calculate the score for the factor. For example, Q1-5 was used to calculate the score for factor 1 (lower extremity function), because the factor loading of this question for factor 1 was markedly larger (0.58) than those for the other four factors (?0.10, ?0.14, ?0.12, 0.11). As described above, Q1-4 and Q1-12 were used to calculate the scores for both factors 1 and 5, and 3 and 5, respectively (Table 5). The score was derived by multiplying the prefixed number of the answer, selected by the patient, by the coefficient that were defined to make the difference between the minimum and maximum scores to be approximately 100 points (Table 6). The additional coefficients were also assigned to adjust the minimum score to be 0 and the maximum score to be 100. The final equations for the scores for the five domains are shown in Table 7.


Discussion

In our previous studies, the questionnaires were constructed by referring to various preexisting outcome measures including the SF-36, the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Oswestry Disability Index,7?9 which have commonly been used for patient with different spinal disorders. We also took extra care to maintain relevance to the original JOA scoring systems by carefully assessing the correlation between the new and original systems. The new questionnaires have been revised several times and underwent many validation processes using rigorous statistical analyses. As a result, 24 questions were selected as the items of the finalized questionnaires for back pain and cervical myelopathy.10?13

In the present study, patients with different severity of cervical myelopathy were examined using the cervical version of the questionnaires to insure the accuracy and responsiveness of this questionnaire against various neurological states of the patient. Factor analysis was used to divide the 24 questions into different factorial domains, and the domains were categorized by interpreting the context of the questions that were divided into each domain. The five domains into which the 24 questions were divided were designated as: (1) lower extremity function, (2) quality of life, (3) cervical spine function, (4) bladder function, and (5) upper extremity function. Then the equations to calculate the score for each domain were assembled in order to intuitively indicate the status of patients in the five different functional domains. The numbers prefixed to the answers chosen by the patients were multiplied by the coefficients so that the difference between the minimum score representing the worst condition and the maximum score representing the best condition would become 100. The equations were further manipulated by other supplemental coefficients so that the minimum score became 0 and the maximum score became 100 to make recognition of the status of the patient as intuitive as possible.

Because the previous JOA scoring system was a preference-based system, and the scores for different neurological functions (i.e., upper and lower extremity motor function, upper and lower extremity and trunk sensory function, and bladder function) were added up to represent overall status of the patients by one simple score, the new system was initially supposed to use a similar manner. However, because the five factors derived from factor analysis were completely independent statistically, and it was considered impractical to evaluate the multidimensional aspects of the patient suffering cervical myelopathy by one digit, we decided to use the scores in different domains independently without simply adding them.

We have successfully assembled the final questionnaire that is capable of demonstrating the status of the patient suffering cervical myelopathy in five different functional aspects with five intuitive numerical scores, after rigorous yet sophisticated statistical analyses. The remaining issue to be confirmed is the responsiveness of this finalized questionnaire against the changes in patient status after various surgical and nonsurgical treatments. We have investigated if the changes in the patient functional status after surgical treatment would be accurately reflected by the changes in the scores in the different domains. The results will be shown and discussed in part V of our study.


References
1.. Japanese Orthopaedic Association.Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (in Japanese)Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1976;50:18–19.
1.. Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (in Japanese). Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1976;50:18?19.
2.. Hirabayashi K.,Miyakawa J.,Satomi K.,Maruyama T.,Wakano K.. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligamentSpine 1981;6:354–364. [doi: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005]
2.. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1981;6:354?364. [pmid: 6792717]
3.. Japanese Orthopaedic Association.Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for cervical myelopathy (17-2 version and 100 version) (in Japanese with English translation)Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1994;68:490–503.
3.. Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for cervical myelopathy (17-2 version and 100 version) (in Japanese with English translation). Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1994;68:490?503.
4.. Benzel E.C.,Lancon J.,Kesterson L.,Hadden T.. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathyJ Spinal Disord 1991;4:286–295. [doi: 10.1097/00002517-199109000-00005]
4.. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991:4:286?295. [pmid: 1802159]
5.. Hamburger C.,Buttner A.,Uhl E.. The cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Correlation of preoperative and postoperative area with clinical symptomsSpine 1997;22:1990–1994. [doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709010-00009]
5.. Hamburger C, Buttner A, Uhl E. The cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Correlation of preoperative and postoperative area with clinical symptoms. Spine 1997;22:1990?1994. [pmid: 9306528]
6.. Houten J.K.,Cooper P.R.. Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcomeNeurosurgery 2003;52:1081–1087. [doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000057746.74779.55]
6.. Houten JK, Cooper PR. Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome. Neurosurgery 2003;52:1081?1087. [pmid: 12699550]
7.. Ware J.E. Jr. SF-36 health survey updateSpine 2000;25:3130–3139. [doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008]
7.. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000;25:3130?3139 [pmid: 11124729]
8.. Fairbank J.C.,Pynsent P.B.. The Oswestry disability indexSpine 2000;25:2940–2952. [doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017]
8.. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine 2000;25:2940?2952. [pmid: 11074683]
9.. Roland M.,Fairbank J.. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaireSpine 2000;25:3115–3124. [doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006]
9.. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000;25:3115?3124. [pmid: 11124727]
10.. Fukui M.,Chiba K.,Kawakami M.,Kikuchi S.,Konno S.,Miyamoto M.,et al. An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 1J Orthop Sci 2007;12:227–240. [doi: 10.1007/s00776-007-1118-1]
10.. Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, et al. An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 1. J Orthop Sci 2007;12:227?240. [pmid: 17530374]
11.. Fukui M.,Chiba K.,Kawakami M.,Kikuchi S.,Konnno S.,Miyamoto M.,et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 2. Endorsement of the alternative itemJ Orthop Sci 2007;12:241–248. [doi: 10.1007/s00776-007-1119-0]
11.. Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konnno S, Miyamoto M, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 2. Endorsement of the alternative item. J Orthop Sci 2007;12:241?248. [pmid: 17530375]
12.. Fukui M.,Chiba K.,Kawakami M.,Kikuchi S.,Konnno S.,Miyamoto M.,et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 3. Determination of reliabilityJ Orthop Sci 2007;12:321–326. [doi: 10.1007/s00776-007-1131-4]
12.. Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konnno S, Miyamoto M, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 3. Determination of reliability. J Orthop Sci 2007;12:321?326. [pmid: 17657550]
13.. Clinical Outcomes Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Subcommittee on Evaluation of Back PainCervical MyelopathyFukui M.,Chiba K.,Kawakami M.,Kikuchi S.,Konno S.,Miyamoto M.,et al. JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire: initial reportJ Orthop Sci 2007;12:443–450. [doi: 10.1007/s00776-007-1162-x]
13.. Clinical Outcomes Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Subcommittee on Evaluation of Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy; Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, et al. JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire: initial report. J Orthop Sci 2007;12:443?450. [pmid: 17909929]

Tables
[TableWrap ID: Tab1] Table 1 

Sex and age distribution of patients


Severity of myelopathy
Sex Age groups (years) Mild Moderate Severe NA Total
Male 20?29 0 0 1 1
30?39 5 6 3 14
40?49 5 5 8 18
50?59 16 18 6 1 41
60?69 24 26 9 59
70?79 7 9 7 23
80?89 3 1 2 6
>90 0 0 0 0
Total 60 65 36 1 162
Female 20?29 0 0 0 0
30?39 2 1 0 3
40?49 3 6 0 9
50?59 4 8 2 14
60?69 11 8 4 23
70?79 5 8 7 20
80?89 2 2 1 5
>90 0 0 0 0
Total 27 33 14 74
Total 87 98 50 1 236

[TableWrap ID: Tab2] Table 2 

Distribution of scores for subdomains in original scoring system of Japanese Orthopaedic Association


Domain Function Score Response number
Motor Upper extremity: feeding
Impossible 0 5
Severe 1 22
Moderate 2 56
Mild 3 92
Normal 4 61
Motor Upper extremity: shoulder and elbow function
Severe ?2 8
Moderate ?1 14
Mild ?0.5 45
Normal 0 166
Unknown 3
Motor Lower extremity: gait
Impossible 0 9
0.5 1
Severe 1 26
1.5 23
Moderate 2 39
2.5 20
Mild 3 59
Normal 4 59
Sensory Upper extremity
Severe 0 9
0.5 40
Moderate 1 111
Mild 1.5 60
Norma l 2 16
Sensory Trunk
Severe 0 1
0.5 5
Moderate 1 39
Mild 1.5 26
Normal 2 165
Unknown
Sensory Lower extremity
Severe 0 4
0.5 24
Moderate 1 69
Mild 1.5 46
Normal 2 93
Bladder Urinary dysfunction
Severe 0 3
Moderate 1 40
Mild 2 55
Normal 3 138
Unknown

n = 236


[TableWrap ID: Tab3] Table 3 

Distribution of answers for 24 questions


Response
Question 1 2 3 4 5
Q1-1 108 (45.8) 103 (43.6) 25 (10.6)
Q1-2 171 (72.5) 56 (23.7) 9 (3.8)
Q1-3 154 (65.3) 49 (20.8) 23 (9.7) 10 (4.2)
Q1-4 107 (45.3) 82 (34.7) 24 (10.2) 15 (6.4) 8 (3.4)
Q1-5 107 (45.3) 72 (30.5) 57 (24.2)
Q1-6 153 (64.8) 49 (20.8) 19 (8.1) 12 (5.1) 3 (1.3)
Q1-7 77 (32.6) 114 (48.3) 45 (19.1)
Q1-8 127 (53.8) 83 (35.2) 26 (11.0)
Q1-9 143 (60.6) 73 (30.9) 20 (8.5)
Q1-10 120(50.8) 86 (36.4) 30 (12.7)
Q1-11 140(59.3) 70 (29.7) 26 (11.0)
Q1-12 161(68.2) 53 (22.5) 22 (9.3)
Q1-13 91 (38.6) 90 (38.1) 55 (23.3)
Q2-1 6 (2.5) 14 (5.9) 87 (36.9) 100 (42.4) 29 (12.3)
Q2-2 48 (20.3) 113 (47.9) 75 (31.8)
Q2-3 43 (18.2) 126 (53.4) 67 (28.4)
Q2-4 46 (19.5) 98 (41.5) 92 (39.0)
Q2-5 25 (10.6) 45 (19.1) 95 (40.3) 51 (21.6) 20 (8.5)
Q2-6 38 (16.1) 49 (20.8) 75 (31.8) 50 (21.2) 24 (10.2)
Q2-7 24 (10.2) 31 (13.1) 105 (44.5) 53 (22.5) 23 (9.7)
Q2-8 24 (10.2) 38 (16.1) 113 (47.9) 40 (16.9) 21 (8.9)
Q2-9 14 (5.9 ) 46 (19.5) 104 (44.1) 50 (21.2) 22 (9.3)
Q2-10 26 (11.0) 68 (28.8) 51 (21.6) 56 (23.7) 35 (14.8)
Q2-11 38 (16.1) 76 (32.2) 73 (30.9) 36 (15.3) 13 (5.5)

Numbers given in parentheses are percentages of the total response


[TableWrap ID: Tab4] Table 4 

Results of factor analysis


Factor Eigenvalue Contribution rate (%) Cumulative contribution rate (%)
1 8.86 36.9 36.9
2 2.02 8.4 45.3
3 1.56 6.5 51.8
4 1.36 5.6 57.5
5 1.20 5.0 62.5
6 1.08 4.5 67.0
7 0.81 3.4 70.3
8 0.71 3.0 73.3
9 0.67 2.8 76.1
10 0.62 2.6 78.7
11 0.53 2.2 80.9
12 0.51 2.1 83.0
13 0.48 2.0 85.0
14 0.43 1.8 86.8
15 0.41 1.7 88.5
16 0.40 1.7 90.2
17 0.38 1.6 91.7
18 0.35 1.5 93.2
19 0.32 1.4 94.6
20 0.30 1.3 95.8
21 0.28 1.2 97.0
22 0.27 1.1 98.1
23 0.24 1.0 99.1
24 0.22 0.9 100.0

n = 236

Bold typeface indicates eigenvalues over 1.0


[TableWrap ID: Tab5] Table 5 

Factor loading after orthogonal rotation


Factors
Question 1 2 3 4 5
Q1-5 0.58 ?0.10 ?0.14 ?0.12 0.11
Q1-4 0.55 0.05 ?0.08 ?0.12 0.40
Q2-3 ?0.39 0.25 0.16 0.18 ?0.04
Q2-4 ?0.39 0.24 0.10 0.33 ?0.09
Q2-2 ?0.52 0.20 0.13 0.24 ?0.03
Q2-7 0.10 0.79 0.00 0.08 ?0.01
Q2-11 ?0.01 0.68 ?0.21 0.03 0.01
Q2-6 0.05 0.55 0.25 ?0.06 ?0.06
Q2-5 ?0.27 0.39 0.19 0.04 ?0.13
Q2-10 0.23 ?0.49 0.08 ?0.10 0.15
Q2-1 0.12 ?0.60 ?0.04 0.01 0.09
Q2-9 0.13 ?0.66 ?0.13 0.10 ?0.06
Q1-11 ?0.02 0.03 ?0.57 ?0.24 0.10
Q1-13 0.05 ?0.06 ?0.75 0.00 0.05
Q1-10 0.04 ?0.01 ?0.87 0.07 ?0.06
Q1-12 0.10 0.04 ?0.32 ?0.21 0.37
Q1-9 0.08 ?0.05 ?0.07 ?0.43 ?0.01
Q1-7 0.14 ?0.04 0.09 ?0.53 ?0.03
Q1-6 0.00 0.02 0.01 ?0.58 0.03
Q1-8 ?0.11 0.01 ?0.06 ?0.61 0.00
Q1-2 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.73
Q1-1 0.24 ?0.13 0.01 0.02 0.60
Q1-3 ?0.27 ?0.11 ?0.05 ?0.11 0.60

Method of factor extraction: unweighted least-squares method-Orthogonal rotation: direct oblimin method with Kaiser normalization Bold typeface indicates absolute value of the factor loading of more than 0.35


[TableWrap ID: Tab6] Table 6 

Coefficients for calculation of severity score


Factor
Question 1 Lower extremity function 2 Quality of life 3 Cervical spine function 4 Bladder function 5 Upper extremity function
Q1-1 ?10
Q1-2 ?15
Q1-3 ?5
Q1-4 ?10 ?5
Q1-5 ?10
Q1-6 ?10
Q1-7 ?5
Q1-8 ?10
Q1-9 ?5
Q1-10 ?20
Q1-11 ?10
Q1-12 ?5 ?5
Q1-13 ?15
Q2-1 ?3
Q2-2 15
Q2-3 5
Q2-4 5
Q2-5 2
Q2-6 2
Q2-7 5
Q2-8 4
Q2-9 ?3
Q2-10 ?2
Q2-11 3

[TableWrap ID: Tab7] Table 7 

Equations to calculate scores for different factors


Factor Equation
1 Lower extremity function (Q1-4 ? 10 + Q1-5 ? 10 + Q2-2 ? 15 + Q2-3 ? 5 + Q2-4 ? 5 ? 45) ? 100 ? 105
2 Quality of life (Q2-1 ? 3 + Q2-5 ? 2 + Q2-6 ? 2 + Q2-7 ? 5 + Q2-8 ? 4 + Q2-9 ? 3 + Q2-10 ? 2+ Q2-11 ? 3 ? 24) ? 100 ? 96
3 Cervical spine function (Q1-10 ? 20 + Q1-11 ? 10 + Q1-12 ? 5 + Q1-13 ? 15 ? 50)
4 Bladder function (Q1-6 ? 10 + Q1-7 ? 5 + Q1-8 ? 10 + Q1-9 ? 5 ? 30) ? 100 ? 80
5 Upper extremity function (Q1-1 ? 10 + Q1-2 ? 15 + Q1-3 ? 5 + Q1-4 ? 5 + Q1-12 ? 5 ? 40) ? 100 ? 95


Article Categories:
  • Original Article


Previous Document:  Statistical analysis of fatal bleeding pelvic fracture patients with severe associated injuries.
Next Document:  Visual analog scale assessment after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: with or without ...