Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-10-2009

How sharp is the short QuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short form of the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire in the strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions

Auteurs: Felix Angst, Jörg Goldhahn, Susann Drerup, Matthias Flury, Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer, Beat R. Simmen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2009

Abstract

Purpose

To assess and compare content, validity, and specificity of the QuickDASH (Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire) as compared to the full-length DASH and other instruments to give a recommendation for its use depending on a specific clinical situation.

Methods

Data of three large cohorts of patients with shoulder (n = 138), elbow (n = 79), and carpo-metacarpal I (n = 103) arthroplasties were analyzed. The item content of both instruments was compared within the subdomains function and symptoms. Scores and correlations to other instruments were compared in all strata to assess construct convergence. Specificity was quantified and compared using receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC) and effect sizes (in shoulder only).

Results

The QuickDASH underestimates symptoms (e.g., 71.1 vs. DASH 66.1 in elbow, 100 = no symptoms, P < 0.001) but overestimates disability (e.g., 72.8 vs. DASH 78.5 in wrist, 100 = full function, P < 0.001). It does not measure the same content as the DASH although the total score levels of both instruments are similar. Furthermore, the QuickDASH is less specific than the DASH in the subdomains, especially in symptoms: for example, area under ROC 0.65 vs. DASH 0.68 in elbow (P = 0.015); effect size in shoulder 1.42 vs. DASH 1.65 (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The short QuickDASH can be recommended for a summary assessment of arm symptoms and function based on the total score in the daily clinical rush. For differentiated assessment of symptoms and function, e.g. for clinical studies, the full-length DASH provides more specific and sophisticated results.

vorige artikel Somatization is associated with physical health-related quality of life independent of anxiety and depression in cancer, glaucoma and rheumatological disorders

volgende artikel Responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score and the SF-36: five years after total hip arthroplasty

McConnell, S., Beaton, D. E., & Bombardier, C. (1999). The DASH outcome measure: A user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health.

Offenbaecher, M., Ewert, T., Sangha, O., & Stucki, G. (2002). Validation of a German version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH-G). Journal of Rheumatology, 29, 401–402.PubMed

Hudack, P., Amadio, P. C., Bombardier, C., & The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 602–608.CrossRef

Dowrick, A. S., Gabbe, B. J., Williamson, O. D., & Cameron, P. A. (2005). Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: A review. Injury, 36(4), 468–476.PubMedCrossRef

Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., & Tarasuk, V. (2001). Measuring the whole or parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14, 128–146.PubMed

Beaton, D. E., & Richards, R. R. (1996). Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (America), 78A, 882–890.

Beaton, D. E., & Richards, R. R. (1998). Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 7, 565–572.PubMedCrossRef

Bot, S. D. M., Terwee, C. B., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2004). Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: A review of the literature. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63, 335–341.PubMedCrossRef

Angst, F., Pap, G., Mannion, A. F., Herren, D. B., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., et al. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty. Usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measurement. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51(5), 819–828.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Doornberg, J. N., Ring, D., Fabian, L. M., Malhotra, L., Zurakowski, D., & Jupiter, J. B. (2005). Pain dominates measurement of elbow function and health status. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87A(8), 1725–1731.CrossRef

11.

Angst, F., John, M., Mannion, A. F., Herren, D. B., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., et al. (2005). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(1), 73–82.PubMedCrossRef

12.

MacDermid, J. C., Richards, R. S., Donner, A., Bellamy, N., & Roth, J. H. (2000). Responsiveness of the short form 36, disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire, patient rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measures evaluating recovery after distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery, 25A, 330–340.

13.

Angst, F., John, M., Goldhahn, J., Herren, D. B., Pap, G., Aeschlimann, A., et al. (2005). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after resection interposition arthroplasty of the thumb saddle joint. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(2), 205–213.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., & Simmen, B. R. (2008). Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(3), 391–398.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Beaton, D. E., Wright, J. G., Katz, J. N., & the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. (2005). Development of QuickDASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87-A(5), 1038–1046.CrossRef

16.

Gummesson, C., Ward, M. M., & Atroshi, I. (2006). The shortened disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): Validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Muculoskel Dis, 7, 44. URL: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/7/44.

17.

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide (2nd ed.). Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualityMetric Incorporated.

18.

Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2004). SF-36 physical and mental summary scales: A manual for users of version 1 (2nd ed.). Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualityMetric Incorporated. (5th printing).

19.

Bullinger, M., & Kirchberger, I. (1998). SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

20.

Roach, K. E., Budiman-Mak, E., Songsiridej, N., & Lertrantanakul, Y. (1991). Development of a shoulder and pain disability index. Arthritis Care & Research, 4, 143–149.CrossRef

21.

Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Pap, G., Mannion, A. F., Roach, K. E., Siebertz, D., et al. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford), 46(1), 87–92.CrossRef

22.

MacDermid, J. C. (2001). Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: Issues in instrument development and evaluation. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14(2), 105–114.PubMed

23.

John, M., Angst, F., Pap, G., Junge, A., & Mannion, A. F. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the patient related elbow evaluation (PREE) for German speaking patients. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 25(2), 195–205.PubMed

24.

MacDermid, J. C., Turgeon, T., Richards, R. S., Beadle, M., & Roth, J. H. (1998). Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: A reliable an valid measurement tool. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 12(8), 577–586.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hemelaers, L., Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., MacDermid, J. C., & Wood-Dauphinée, S. (2008). Reliability and validity of the German version of the patient related wrist evaluation form (PRWE) in patients with acute distal radius fracture. Journal of Elbow Hand Therapy, 21(4), 366–376.CrossRef

26.

Rosner, B. (2000). Different significant tests. In B. Rosner (Ed.), Fundamentals of biostatistics (5th ed.). California: Duxbury (Thomson learning). pages 275,343,459.

27.

Wyrwich, K. W., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2000). Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(1), 39–49.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Homogeneity of the items. In D. L. Streiner & G. R. Norman (Eds.), Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed., pp. 68–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29.

Sachs, L. (1999). Significance tests of two correlation coefficients. In L. Sachs (Ed.), Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden. (Applied statistics. Application of statistical methods.) (9th ed., pp. 543–544). Berlin: Springer.

30.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Receiver operating characteristic curves, responsiveness. In D. L. Streiner & G. R. Norman (Eds.), Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed., pp. 119–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 198–199,209.

31.

Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and the use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29–36.PubMed

32.

Bessette, L., Sangha, O., Kuntz, K. M., Keller, R. B., Lwe, R. A., Fossle, A. H., et al. (1998). Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Medical Care, 36, 491–502.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(Suppl. 3), 178–189.CrossRef

34.

Angst, F., Aeschlimann, A., Michel, B. A., & Stucki, G. (2002). Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Journal of Rheumatology, 29(1), 131–138.PubMed

35.

Abrahamson, J. H., & Abrahamson, Z. H. (2001). Measures of strength. In J. H. Abrahamson & Z. H. Abrahamson (Eds.), Making sense of data. A self-instruction manual on the interpretation of epidemiologic data (3rd ed., pp. 200–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Titel: How sharp is the short QuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short form of the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire in the strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions
Auteurs: Felix Angst
Jörg Goldhahn
Susann Drerup
Matthias Flury
Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer
Beat R. Simmen
Publicatiedatum: 01-10-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9529-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2009

Responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score and the SF-36: five years after total hip arthroplasty

The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument

Negative and positive affect are independently associated with patient-reported health status following percutaneous coronary intervention

Concordance of cancer patients’ function, symptoms, and supportive care needs

Predictive value of serial measurements of quality of life on all-cause mortality in prostate cancer patients: data from CaPSURE™ (cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor) database

Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew