Purpose To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting. Methods Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST—Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach’s α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations. Results In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency ( α  = 0.58–0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2–0.9 with exact agreement 48.9–57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9–98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up ( r s  = 0.41–0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations ( r s  = −0.33–0.07). Conclusions The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.