The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH

Christina Gummesson, Michael M Ward, Isam Atroshi, Christina Gummesson, Michael M Ward, Isam Atroshi

Abstract

Background: The 30-item disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire is increasingly used in clinical research involving upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. From the original DASH a shorter version, the 11-item QuickDASH, has been developed. Little is known about the discriminant ability of score changes for the QuickDASH compared to the DASH. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the QuickDASH and its cross-sectional and longitudinal validity and reliability.

Methods: The study was based on extracting QuickDASH item responses from the responses to the full-length DASH questionnaire completed by 105 patients with a variety of upper extremity disorders before surgery and at follow-up 6 to 21 months after surgery. The DASH and QuickDASH scores were compared for the whole population and for different diagnostic groups. For longitudinal construct validity the effect size and standardized response mean were calculated. Analyses with ROC curves were performed to compare the ability of the DASH and QuickDASH to discriminate among patients classified according to the magnitude of self-rated improvement. Cross-sectional and test-retest reliability was assessed.

Results: The mean DASH score was 34 (SD 22) and the mean QuickDASH score was 39 (SD 24) at baseline. For the different diagnostic groups the mean and median QuickDASH scores were higher than the corresponding DASH scores. For the whole population, the mean difference between the QuickDASH and DASH baseline scores was 4.2 (95% CI 3.2-5.3), follow-up scores was 2.6 (1.7-3.4), and change scores was 1.7 (0.6-2.8). The overall effect size and standardized response mean measured with the DASH and the QuickDASH were similar. In the ROC analysis of change scores among patients who rated their arm status as somewhat or much better and those who rated it as unchanged the difference in the area under the ROC curve for the DASH and QuickDASH was 0.01 (95% CI -0.05-0.07) indicating similar discriminant ability.Cross-sectional and test-retest reliability of the DASH and QuickDASH were similar.

Conclusion: The results indicate that the QuickDASH can be used instead of the DASH with similar precision in upper extremity disorders.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatter plot of the QuickDASH and DASH scores at baseline and follow-up.

References

    1. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–608. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>;2-L.
    1. Davis AM, Beaton DE, Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D, Hawker G, Katz JN, Makela M, Marx RG, Punnett L, Wright JG. Measuring disability of the upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. J Hand Ther. 1999;12:269–274.
    1. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128–146.
    1. The DASH outcome measure. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Canada
    1. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–1046. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02060.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales A practical guide to their development and use. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
    1. Norman G. Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:239–249. doi: 10.1023/A:1023211129926.
    1. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38:II84–II90.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. doi: 10.1023/A:1023499322593.
    1. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-11.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic plots. BMJ. 1994;309:188.
    1. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39:561–577.
    1. Schuck P. Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:571–586. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021318.92272.2a.
    1. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B, Dahlgren E, Johansson A. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:613–618. doi: 10.1080/000164700317362262.
    1. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. Performance of health-status scales when used selectively or within multi-scale questionnaire. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-3.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi