The reliability and validity of the English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire for people with rheumatoid arthritis

Alison Hammond, Alan Tennant, Sarah F Tyson, Ulla Nordenskiöld, Ruth Hawkins, Yeliz Prior, Alison Hammond, Alan Tennant, Sarah F Tyson, Ulla Nordenskiöld, Ruth Hawkins, Yeliz Prior

Abstract

Objectives: The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) includes 138 items in 14 domains identified as important by people with RA. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the English EDAQ.

Methods: A total of 502 participants completed two questionnaires 3 weeks apart. The first consisted of the EDAQ, HAQ, RA Quality of Life (RAQoL) and the Medical Outcomes Scale (MOS) 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36v2), and the second consisted of the EDAQ only. The 14 EDAQ domains were tested for: unidimensionality-using confirmatory factor analysis; fit, response dependency, invariance across groups (differential item functioning)-using Rasch analysis; internal consistency [Person Separation Index (PSI)]; concurrent validity-by correlations with the HAQ, SF-36v2 and RAQoL; and test-retest reliability (Spearman's correlations).

Results: Confirmatory factor analysis of the 14 EDAQ domains indicated unidimensionality, after adjustment for local dependency in each domain. All domains achieved a root mean square error of approximation <0.10 and satisfied Rasch model expectations for local dependency. DIF by age, gender and employment status was largely absent. The PSI was consistent with individual use (PSI = 0.94 for all 14 domains). For all domains, except Caring, concurrent validity was good: HAQ (rs = 0.72-0.91), RAQoL (rs = 0.67-0.82) and SF36v2 Physical Function scale (rs = -0.60 to -0.84) and test-retest reliability was good (rs = 0.70-0.89).

Conclusion: Analysis supported a 14-domain, two-component structure (Self care and Mobility) of the EDAQ, where each domain, and both components, satisfied Rasch model requirements, and have robust reliability and validity.

Keywords: Rasch analysis; activities of daily living; outcome research; rheumatoid arthritis.

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Figures

F ig . 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment and study progress flow diagram
F ig . 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of persons and item thresholds for (A) the Self care and (B) the Mobility components

References

    1. Kirwan JR, Reeback JS. Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire modified to assess disability in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1986;25:26–9.
    1. Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ, Guccione AA, Kazis LE. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1992;35:1–10.
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.
    1. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–9.
    1. White DK, Wilson JC, Keysor JJ. Measures of adult general functional status. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:S297–307.
    1. Gignac M, Cao X, McAlpine J, Badley EM. Measures of disability. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:S308–24.
    1. Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis – progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:2250–6.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, 2009. (15 February 2014, date last accessed)
    1. Nordenskiöld U, Grimby G, Hedberg M, Wright B, Linacre JM. The structure of an instrument for assessing the effect of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1996;9:21–30.
    1. Nordenskiold U, Grimby G, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1998;17:6–16.
    1. Nordenskiold U. EDAQ Manual Praktisk Genomrade Version 5. Göteborg, Sweden: Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg University, 2007.
    1. Cederlund R, Nordenskiold U, Lundborg G. Hand-arm vibration exposure influences performance of daily activities. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:570–7.
    1. Cederlund R, Iwarsson S, Lundborg G. Quality of life in Swedish workers exposed to hand-arm vibration syndrome. Occup Ther Int. 2007;14:156–69.
    1. Sandqvist G, Eklund MA, Akesson A, Nordenskiold U. ADL activities and hand function in women with scleroderma. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:102–7.
    1. Thyberg I, Hass UAM, Nordenskiold U, Gerdel B, Skogh T. Activity limitation in rheumatoid arthritis correlates with reduced grip force regardless of sex: the Swedish TIRA Project. Arthritis Care Res. 2005;53:886–96.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–91.
    1. Hammond A, Tyson S, Prior Y, et al. Linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of an English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:143.
    1. Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Transact. 1994;7:328.
    1. Quality Metric Incorporated Solutions, QualityMetric Health Outcomes Scoring Software 4.5. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated 2010. (26 February 2015, date last accessed)
    1. Tennant A, Hillman M, Fear J, Pickering A, Chamberlain MA. Are we making the most of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire? Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35:574–8.
    1. Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): analyses in 2491 Rheumatoid Arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:982–9.
    1. De Jong Z, van der Heijde D, McKenna SP, Whalley D. The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:878–83.
    1. Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U. The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire: v1 (parts 1 and 2) (English) Manchester, UK University of Salford, 2014. (11 January 2014, date last accessed)
    1. Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, Nordenskiold U. The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire: User Manual v1 (English). Manchester, UK: University of Salford, 2014. (11 January 2014, date last accessed)
    1. Panter A, Swygert T, Kimberly A, Grant Dahlstrom W, Tanaka JS. Factor analytic approaches to personality item-level data. J Pers Assess. 1997;68:561–89.
    1. Brown TA. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for applied research.
    1. Smith EV. Detecting and evaluation the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3:205–31.
    1. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care Res. 2007;57:1358–62.
    1. Van Newby A, Conner GR, Bunderson CV. The Rasch model and additive conjoint measurement. J Appl Meas. 2009;10:348–54.
    1. Masters G. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149–74.
    1. Andrich D, Sheridan BED, Luo G. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2009. RUMM2030: Rasch unidimensional models for measurement.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
    1. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46:1–18.
    1. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27–30.
    1. Donoghue D, PROP group. Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:343–6.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv, 1–74.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
    1. National Literacy Trust. Words for Life. How many illiterate adults are there in England? (20 January 2014, date last accessed)

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa