Summary: The BIDQ‐S has been validated for internal consistency and construct validity in AIS patients. To establish discriminant validity, 75 operative and non‐operative AIS patients and 205 healthy adolescents completed the BIDQ‐S. Analysis revealed a significant difference in scores between the groups (1.55 vs. 1.08, p<0.001), between females of the groups (1.59 vs. 1.05, p<0.001), and between males of the groups (1.44 vs. 1.09, p<0.001). This finding further validates the BIDQ‐S as a reliable and unique tool to assess psychosocial outcomes of AIS.
Introduction: Psychosocial construct measurements have become increasingly valuable in evaluating the impact of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) on patients. The Body Image Disturbance Questionnaire‐Scoliosis Version (BIDQ‐S) has been validated for internal consistency and construct validity in 50 AIS patients, proving to be a reliable instrument for measuring appearance‐related distress in this population. The purpose of this study was to establish discriminant validity of the BIDQ‐S by comparing responses of operative and non‐operative AIS patients with those of normal adolescents without AIS.
Methods: 75 AIS patients (age: 14.0; 80% F), and 205 healthy adolescents without AIS (age: 16.1; 50.9% F) were enrolled into a single‐center, cross‐sectional study. Subjects completed two self‐report questionnaires: the BIDQ‐S and a race/demographic form. Patients completed them pre‐treatment. Independent sample t‐tests and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.
Results: There was a significant difference in BIDQ‐S scores between AIS patients and healthy adolescents (1.55 vs. 1.08, p<0.001), between females of the groups (1.59 vs. 1.05, p<0.001), between males of the groups (1.44 vs. 1.09, p<0.001) and between non‐operative AIS patients and healthy adolescents (1.51 vs. 1.08, p<0.001), establishing discriminant validity of the questionnaire. There was no significant effect of age, race, or BMI on BIDQ‐S scores in each group. The difference in BIDQ‐S scores between operative and non‐operative AIS patients did not reach significance (1.58 vs. 1.51 p=0.50) despite greater curve severity in operative patients (major cobb: 50.9° vs. 24.0°, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in scores between male and female AIS patients.
Conclusion: In contrast to healthy adolescents in the general population, the scores of AIS patients are indicative of greater back‐related body image disturbance and social impairment as a result of this distress. This finding further validates the BIDQ‐S as a unique tool to quantify psychosocial disease outcomes for AIS.