ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010; n = 887; mean age = 14.3 (1.9); mean Cobb angle = 53 degrees (18 degrees); 1 year post-operation)

• SEM for Appearance = 0.21

• SEM for Activity = 0.17

• SEM for Pain = 0.15

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Th¨¦roux et al., 2017; n = 352; mean age = 14.3 (1.8); French sample)

• Pain: 0.034

• Self-Image: 0.033

• Function: 0.021

• Mental Health: 0.035

• Satisfaction with Management: 0.048

• Total: 0.02

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014; n = 200, French-Canadian sample)

• Pain: 0.50

• Self-image: 0.53

• Function: 0.47

• Mental health: 0.53

• Total: 0.31

Adult Spinal Deformity: (Kyr?l? et al., 2017; n = 274; Finnish sample)

Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010)

• MDC for Appearance = 0.47

• MDC for Activity = 0.41

• MDC for Pain = 0.33

Mild Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Ambrosini, Rocca, Foti, & Ferrante, 2017; n = 149; mean age = 12.4 (1.1))

• Function

  • Effect size: 1.45

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.57

  • MIC: 0.70

• Pain

  • Effect size: 1.47

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.43

  • MIC: 0.70

• Mental Health

  • Effect size: 1.23

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.08

  • MIC: 0.50

• Self-perceived image

  • Effect size: 1.50

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.58

  • MIC: 0.40

Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)

• Function

  • Effect size: 1.37

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.42

  • MIC: 0.60

• Pain

  • Effect size: 1.13

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.17

  • MIC: 0.40

• Mental Health

  • Effect size: 1.02

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 0.99

  • MIC: 0.55

• Self-perceived image

  • Effect size: 1.14

  • Effect size (Guyatt): 1.04

  • MIC: 0.60

Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carreon et al., 2010)

• Used ROC¨Ccurve derived MCID

• For appearance, the change score distinguished between unchanged and better patients, MCID = 0.98

• For activity, the change score distinguished between same and increased for patients MCID = 0.08

• For pain, the change score distinguished between same and decreased for patients MCID = 0.20

Adult Spinal Deformity: (Crawford, Glassman, Bridwell, Berven, & Carreon, 2015; n = 1321; mean age = 53)

• MCID estimate = 0.4. This corresponds to a change of 1 interval in 2 of the 5 questions for a single domain

Adult Spinal Deformity: (Kyr?l? et al., 2017)

• Compared with the SRS-30 domain means of the age-sex normative non-scoliotic population data published by Baldus et al. our cohort had significantly lower means in all domains, i.e., 4.1-4.6 versus 2.46-3.11

Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee, Choi, Hwang, & Park, 2017; n = 122; mean age = 14 (2.27); Korean sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.84)

• Acceptable for Mental health (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.75)

• Poor for Satisfaction with management (ICC = 0.69)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009; n = 51; Dutch sample)

• Excellent for Function (ICC = 0.93)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.82)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.79)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.83)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.72)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015; n = 81; mean age = Group 1: 16.78 (4.41), Group 2: 17.35 (4.45); Arabic sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)

• Excellent for Pain (ICC = 0.90)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.88)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.84)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.82)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Sathira-Angkura, Pithankuakul, Sakulpipatana, Piyaskulkaew, & Kunakornsawat, 2012; n = 58; mean age = 14.6 (2.8); Thai sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.79)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.84)

• Excellent for Mental Health (ICC = 0.90)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.89)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.84)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Niemeyer et al., 2009)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.76)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.85)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.87)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.75)

• Acceptable for main score without ¡°only surgically treated patients¡± (ICC = 0.89)

• Acceptable for main score including only surgically treated patients (ICC = 0.88)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Adobor, Rimesl?tten, Keller, & Brox, 2010; n = 57; median age = 21; Norwegian sample)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.87)

• Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.87)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.82)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010; n = 84, Persian sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.82)

• Acceptable for Self-image (ICC = 0.85)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.79)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.81)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao, Zhang, Sun, Du, & Shang, 2007; n = 86; Chinese sample)

Test-retest reliability (ICCs) for Chinese, English, and Spanish versions

Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7); NA = not applicable

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012; n = 96, Greek sample)

Test-Retest Reproducibility as Determined by ICC (n = 87)

Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Baiardi, Calabro, Calabro, & Foti, 2010; n = 223; Italian sample)

SRS-22r-I Repeatability Results (n = 223)

Excellent Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.9); Acceptable Test-Retest Reliability (ICC > 0.7)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.93)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.89)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.86)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.85)

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011; n = 64; mean age = 18.3; Korean sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.83)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.81)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.84)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.88)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.87)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Danielsson et al., 2013; n = 193; mean age = 23.3 (8.9); Swedish sample)

• Excellent for Pain (ICC = 0.93)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.78)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.87)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.84)

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Alanay et al., 2005; n = 47; mean age = 19.8; Turkish sample)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.82)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.78)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction (ICC = 0.81)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007; n = 48, Mean Age = 16.5; Chinese sample)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.83)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.76)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.79)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.84)

• Acceptable for Satisfaction with Management (ICC = 0.82)

Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates, Burton, Lai, Fraiser, & Asher, 2007; n = 70; mean age = 14.1 (2.7); 48 unoperated idiopathic scoliosis, 3 operated idiopathic scoliosis, 5 congenital scoliosis, 5 neuromuscular scoliosis, 4 spondylolisthesis, 2 scheuermann¡¯s hyper-kyphosis, 2 syndromic scoliosis, 1 scoliosis associated with extremity amelia)

• Acceptable for Function (ICC = 0.76)

• Acceptable for Pain (ICC = 0.80)

• Acceptable for Self-Image (ICC = 0.78)

• Acceptable for Mental Health (ICC = 0.74)

• Not Acceptable for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (ICC = 0.56)

French Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Th¨¦roux et al., 2017)

Internal Consistency Comparison

Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha >.0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha <0.8 and >0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha <0.7

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Schlosser et al., 2014; n = 135; mean age = 15.1 (2.0); Dutch sample)

• Adequate for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.85)

• Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.72)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha =0.78)

• Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.71)

Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.64)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.76)

• Poor for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.69)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.74)

• Poor for Satisfaction with management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.48)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009)

• Adequate for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.85)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

• Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.83)

• Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.67)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.58)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.82)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.71)

• Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.85)

• Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.44)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Sathira-Angkura, Pithankuakul, Sakulpipatana, Piyaskulkaew, & Kunakornsawat, 2012)

• Adequate for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.70)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.76)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.80)

• Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

• Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.73)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Glowacki et al., 2008; n = 60; mean age = 15.6 (3.8); Polish sample)

• Excellent for Functionality (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

• Excellent for Mental health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.80)

• Adequate for Self-Image Perception (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.77)

• Poor for Satisfaction with management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.69)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Niemeyer et al., 2009; n = 78; German sample)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.67)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)

• Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.84)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88)

• Poor for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.61)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Adobor et al., 2010)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.93)

• Excellent for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.93)

• Excellent for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.89)

• Excellent for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.90)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010)

• Adequate for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.70)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.73)

• Poor for Self-image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.68)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.78)

• Adequate for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.76)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao et al., 2007)

Internal Consistency (Cronbach¡¯s Alpha) for Chinese, English, and Spanish versions.

Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha >.0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha <0.8 and >0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha <0.7; NA = not applicable

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)

Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach¡¯s Alpha, n = 87)

Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha > 0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha < 0.8 and > 0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha < 0.7

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis:(Monticone et al., 2010)

• Adequate Internal Consistency (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.77)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Carrico et al., 2012; n = 64, Brazilian Portuguese sample)

Internal Consistency

SRS-30 = Scoliosis ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº Society-30; Excellent Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha > 0.8; Adequate Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha < 0.8 and > 0.7; Poor Internal Consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha < 0.7

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.60)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.71)

• Poor for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.61)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.73)

• Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.60)

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011)

• Excellent for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.85)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.83)

• Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

• Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.61)

Adolescent Idiopathic scoliosis (Danielsson & Romberg, 2013)

Test #1

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.79)

• Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.80)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.59)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.89)

• Adequate for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.75)

Test #2

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.78)

• Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.84)

• Adequate for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.72)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

• Excellent for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Alanay et al., 2005)

• Adequate for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.72)

• Excellent for Self-image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.80)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.72)

• Excellent for Satisfaction with Management (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.83)

• Poor for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.48)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)

• Excellent for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.86)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

• Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.78)

• Excellent for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

• Poor for Satisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.53)

Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates et al., 2007)

• Excellent for Function (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.82)

• Excellent for Pain (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)

• Excellent for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.93)

• Adequate for Self-Image (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.71)

• Adequate for Mental Health (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.79)

Predictive Validity

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Parent et al., 2009; n = 227; mean age = 18.6 (9.2); curve severity: < 30 degrees, n = 58; 30-50 degrees n = 66; > 50 degrees n = 34; all others operated)

• Poor to Adequate correlation of SRS-22 scores with the internal and external deformity measures was observed in subjects that had received corrective surgery (in the domains of pain, self-image, satisfaction, and total scores) and in those that had not (in the domains of self-image, mental health, satisfaction, and total scores).

Concurrent Validity

Adolescents Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)

• Adequate concurrent validity was found by comparing the SRS-22r domains with the relevant PedsQL 4.0 in both the function and the pain domain of the SRS-22r and the physical domain of the PedsQL 4.0.

• Adequate concurrent validity was found between the self-image domain with both the physical and the psychological domains of the PedsQL 4.0.

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)

Concurrent Validity of the Arabic Version of SRS-22r Questionnaire Domains with those of SF-36 Questionnaire

**correlation significant at < 0.01 level; *correlation significant at < 0.05 level; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30

Adolescent idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)

Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant Subscales of SF-36 as Determined by Spearman¡¯s Rho Correlation Coefficient (n = 87)

Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.6; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient: 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)

Concurrent Validity of SRS-22r Domains with Relevant SF-36 subscales (n = 223)

*p < 0.001; SRS = Scoliosis ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº Society; SF = Short-Form; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)

• Excellent concurrent validity in patients with scoliosis

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Alanay et. al, 2005)

Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant SF-36 Domains as Determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients (n = 47)

Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Danielsson & Romberg, 2013)

SRS-22 = Scoliosis ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº Society-22 Questionnaire; Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)

Concurrent Validity of SRS-22 Domains with Relevant SF-36 Domains as Determined by Pearson Correlation Coefficients (n = 50)

Excellent concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor concurrent validity: Correlation coefficient < 0.30; *Not significant (p > 0.05)

Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates, Burton, Lai, Frasier, & Asher, 2007)

Concurrent Validity with the CHQ-CF 87 Domains

*p < 0.0001; (t) p < 0.0005; (T) p < 0.05; Excellent Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor Criterion Validity: correlation coefficient < 0.3

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Parent et al., 2009)

• Adequate to Excellent correlation with pain scores for subjects treated with a brace than for those pre-surgery

• Adequate to Excellent correlation with Self-Image for pre-surgery subjects than for subjects under observation or for those post-surgery

• Adequate correlation to Satisfaction for patients treated with a brace than for those under observation or pre-surgery

• Adequate correlation to Satisfaction for patients post-surgery patients than for those under observation or pre-surgery

• Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for the function scores

• Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for the mental health scores

• Poor correlation for differences between management subgroups for total scores

• Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of function score

• Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of pain score

• Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of self-image score

• Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in the domain of mental health score

• Excellent correlations for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves between 30 and 50 degrees in total score

• Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the domain of pain score.

• Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the domain self-image score.

• Adequate correlation for subjects with curves > 50 degrees than for those with curves < 30 degrees in the total score

• Poor correlation with differences in satisfaction were found between the subgroups of different curve severity

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)

• Adequate discriminant validity

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Danielsson et al., 2013)

Excellent Construct Validity: correlation coefficient > 0.60; Adequate Construct Validity: correlation coefficient 0.31-0.59; Poor Construct Validity: correlation coefficient < 0.3

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Climent et al., 2005; n = 175; mean age = 18.9; Spanish sample)

• Poor correlation between age and function/activity (r = -0.29)

• Adequate correlation between age and pain (r = -0.41)

• Poor correlation between age and self- image (r = -0.28)

• Adequate correlation between age and mental health (r = -0.33)

• Poor correlation between age and satisfaction (r = -0.30)

• Adequate correlation between age and total score (r = -0.43; p < 0.01)

• Adequate correlation between the age at which surgery and pain (r = -0.33, p < 0.01)

• Poor correlation between the age at which surgery and mental health (r = -0.28; p < 0.01)

• Adequate correlation between the age at which surgery and total score (r = -0.32; p < 0.01)

• Excellent Convergent validity was found by comparing data from the SRS-22 and the QLPSD profile (r = 0.84; p < 0.001).

• Excellent convergent validity between the SRS-22 and QLSDP (r = 0.84)

• Adequate construct validity with the classic variables of the condition

• Adequate discriminant validity with the classic variables of the condition

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Th¨¦roux et al., 2017)

• Floor

  • Excellent for Pain (0%)

  • Excellent for Self-Image (0%)

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Excellent for Mental Health (0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (1.7%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Pain (22.8%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (5.4%)

  • Adequate for Function (0.9%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (11.1%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (17.1%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Schlosser et al., 2014)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Pain (1%)

  • Excellent for Self-Image (0%)

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Excellent for Mental Health (0%)

  • Excellent for Satisfaction with Management (0%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Pain (20%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (4%)

  • Poor for Function (33%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (8%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction with Management (22%)

Adolescents Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lee et al., 2017)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Function (0.8%)

  • Adequate for Pain (1.6%)

  • Adequate for Self-image (0.8%)

  • Adequate for Mental health (0.8%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with management (0.8%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Function (37.7%)

  • Poor for Pain (33.6%)

  • Adequate for Self-image (1.6%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (5.7%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with management (8.2%)

Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Antonarakos et al., 2009)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Pain (2%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2%)

  • Adequate for Function (2%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (2%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (2%)

• Ceiling

  • Adequate for Pain (9.8%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (13.7%)

  • Adequate for Function (7.8%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (2%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction with Management (37.3%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Haidar, Kassak, Masrouha, Ibrahim, & Mhaidli, 2015)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Pain (2.4%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.4%)

  • Adequate for Function (2.4%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (4.9%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction with Management (4.9%)

• Ceiling

  • Adequate for Pain (14.6%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (4.9%)

  • Adequate for Function (4.9%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (2.4%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction with Management (26.8%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Glowacki et al., 2008)

• Floor

  • Adequate for all domains (1.7%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Pain (20.7%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (8.6%)

  • Adequate for Function (5.2%)

  • Adequate for Mental health (15.5%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Adobor et al., 2010)

• Floor

  • Excellent for Pain (0%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (1.8%)

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Excellent for Mental Health (0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (4.2%)

• Ceiling

  • Adequate for Pain (10.5%)

  • Excellent for Self-Image (0%)

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (10.0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (7.3%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Mousavi et al., 2010)

• Floor

  • Adequate for all domains (2.8%)

• Ceiling:

  • Adequate for Function (2.8%)

  • Adequate for Pain (16.1%)

  • Adequate for Self-image (2.8%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (5.8%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (19.4%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone, Carabalona, Negrini, 2004; n = 55, Italian sample)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Function (5.7%)

  • Poor for Pain (25.7%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.9%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (11.4%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (2.9%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Function (48.6%)

  • Poor for Pain (74.3%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (8.6%)

  • Poor for Mental Health (34.3%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction (20.0%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Zhao et al., 2007)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Function (2.3%)

  • Adequate for Pain (7.0%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.3%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (4.7%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (2.3%)

• Ceiling

  • Adequate for Function (2.3%)

  • Adequate for Pain (15.1%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (4.7%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (5.8%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (2.3%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Potoupnis et al., 2012)

• Floor:

  • Adequate for all domains (1.1%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Function (52.9%)

  • Adequate for Pain (18.4%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (11.5%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (8.0%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction (31.0%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Lonjon et al., 2014)

• Floor

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Excellent for Pain (0%)

  • Excellent for Self-Image (0%)

  • Excellent for Mental health (0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (1.2%)

• Ceiling

  • Excellent for Function (0%)

  • Adequate for Pain (19.4%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (1.1%)

  • Adequate for Mental health (8.0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (9.4%)

Idiopathic Scoliosis (Lee et al., 2011)

• Floor Effects

  • Adequate for Function (1.2%)

  • Adequate for Pain (1.2%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.4%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (1.2%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (2.4%)

• Ceiling effects

  • Poor for Function (31.3%)

  • Poor for Pain (24.1%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (4.8%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (12.0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (8.4%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (Danielsson et al., 2013)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Pain (0.5%)

  • Adequate for Self-image (0.5%)

  • Adequate for Function (0.5%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (0.5%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (1.7%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Pain (28%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (5.7%)

  • Poor for Function (21.8%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (11.9%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (17.4%)

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Cheung et al., 2007)

• Floor

  • Adequate for Function (2.0%)

  • Adequate for Pain (2.0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (2.0%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (4.0%)

  • Adequate for Mental health (4.0%)

• Ceiling

  • Poor for Function (44.0%)

  • Poor for Pain (30.0%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction (10.0%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.0%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (18.0%)

Adolescent Spinal Deformity: (Glates et al., 2007)

• Floor Effects

  • Adequate for Function (1.4%)

  • Adequate for Pain (1.4%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (2.9%)

  • Adequate for Mental Health (1.4%)

  • Adequate for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (3.4%)

• Ceiling Effects

  • Poor for Function (47.1%)

  • Poor for Pain (27.1%)

  • Adequate for Self-Image (12.9%)

  • Poor for Mental Health (21.4%)

  • Poor for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (24.1%)

Mild Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)

• Large responsiveness for all domains

Moderate Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2017)

• Large to Moderate responsiveness

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: (Monticone et al., 2010)

• Large responsiveness