Primary Image

Rehab Measures Image

Back Pain Functional Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

The BPFS is a self-report measure that evaluates a patient's functional status related to back pain. Items were pulled from already existing instruments, such as SIP, OLBPD, QBPD, Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), RMQ, MOS-36,and PSFS, and interviews with physical therapists (Longo et al., 2010).

Link to Instrument

Acronym BPFS

Area of Assessment

Functional Mobility
Pain

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Not Free

Populations

Key Descriptions

  • The BPFS is a self-report measure that?evaluates a?patient's functional status related to back pain.? Items?were pulled from already existing instruments, such as SIP, OLBPD, QBPD, Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), RMQ, MOS-36, and PSFS, and interviews with physical therapists (Longo et al., 2010).
  • The BPFS consists of 12 items:
    1) Usual work, housework, or school activities
    2) Usual hobbies, recreational, or sporting activities
    3) Performance of heavy activities around your home
    4) Bending or stooping
    5) Putting on your shoes or socks (or stockings or pantyhose)
    6) Lifting a box of groceries from the floor
    7) Sleeping
    8) Standing for 1 hour
    9) Walking 1 mile
    10) Going up or down 2 flights of stairs (about 20 steps)
    11) Sitting for 1 hour
    12) Driving for 1 hour
  • Responses:
    0 - Unable to perform activity
    1- Extreme difficulty
    2 - Quite a bit of difficulty
    3 - Moderate difficulty
    4 - A?little bit of difficulty
    5 - No difficulty
  • Total Score = Sum of points from all 12 measures
  • Adjusted Total Score = Total Score / 60
  • Interpretation:
    Minimum Score:? 0
    Maximum Score: 60
    Maximum Adjusted Score: 1 (100%)
    The higher the score, the greater the patient's functional ability
  • Total Score (Adjusted) with Interpretations:
    0 (0%) - unable to perform any activity
    60 (100%) - no difficulty in any activity

Number of Items

12

Time to Administer

 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jill Smiley, MPH and the Rehabilitation Measurse Team in August 2013.

Body Part

Back

Measurement Domain

Motor

Considerations

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Back Pain

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Back Pain:

(Stratford et al, 2000; n = 77 patients with low back pain who were referred by physicians to 10 outpatient physical therapy clinics located in Canada and the United States; sex = 47 females and 30 males; median age = 44 years; mean duration of symptoms associated with the current episode of back pain was 4.5 weeks, Back Pain)

  • SEM = 6.5% (95% CI: 5.2, 8.8)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Back Pain:

(Stratford and Binkley, 2000; n = 153 patients with low back pain attending physical therapy; 11 Canadian clinics and 8 American clinics participated in the study, Back Pain)

  • MDC = 22.2%

Test/Retest Reliability

Back Pain:

(Stratford et al, 2000, Back Pain)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.94))

(Stratford and Binkley, 2000, Back Pain)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.82)

Internal Consistency

Back Pain:

(Stratford et al, 2000, Back Pain)

  • Excellent internal consistency (ICC = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 - 0.96))

(Stratford and Binkley, 2000, Back Pain)

  • Excellent internal consistency (ICC = 0.93)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Back Pain:

(Stratford and Binkley, 2000, Back Pain)

  • There was a ceiling effect for three patients' scores

Bibliography

Longo, U. G., Loppini, M., et al. (2010). "Rating scales for low back pain." British Medical Bulletin 94(1): 81-144.

Stratford, P. W. and Binkley, J. M. (2000). "A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation 嫩B研究院 Network." J Rheumatol 27(8): 1928-1936.

Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., et al. (2000). "Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale." Spine 25(16): 2095-2102.