nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.11.2013 | Review

Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review

verfasst von: Carol A. Kennedy, Dorcas E. Beaton, Peter Smith, Dwayne Van Eerd, Kenneth Tang, Taucha Inrig, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Denise Linton, Rachel Couban

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

To identify and synthesize evidence for the measurement properties of the QuickDASH, a shortened version of the 30-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) instrument.

Methods

This systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to critically appraise the measurement properties [using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)] of the QuickDASH and cross-cultural adaptations. A standard search strategy was conducted between 2005 (year of first publication of QuickDASH) and March 2011 in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL.

Results

The search identified 14 studies to include in the best evidence synthesis of the QuickDASH. A further 11 studies were identified on eight cross-cultural adaptation versions.

Conclusions

Many measurement properties of the QuickDASH have been evaluated in multiple studies and across most of the measurement properties. The best evidence synthesis of the QuickDASH English version suggests that this tool is performing well with strong positive evidence for reliability and validity (hypothesis testing), and moderate positive evidence for structural validity testing. Strong negative evidence was found for responsiveness due to lower correlations with global estimates of change. Information about the measurement properties of the cross-cultural adaptation versions is still lacking, or the available information is of poor overall methodological quality.

Vorheriger Artikel Reliability and validity of the English (Singapore) and Chinese (Singapore) versions of the Short-Form 36 version 2 in a multi-ethnic Urban Asian population in Singapore

Nächster Artikel Psychometric evaluation of the CASP-19 quality of life scale in an older Irish cohort

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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

Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(6), 602–608.PubMedCrossRef

Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.

Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296–322.

Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual. (Third) ed. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health. 2011.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research [ePub ahead of print]. 2011

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.PubMedCrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Gibbons, E., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 82.PubMedCrossRef

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2006). Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 2.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Schellingerhout, J. M., Heymans, M. W., Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., Koes, B. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 87.PubMedCrossRef

14.

van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(12):1290-9.

15.

Beaton, D. E., & Kennedy, C. A. (2005). Beyond return to work: Testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1869–1879.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Budd, H. R., Larson, D., Chojnowski, A., & Shepstone, L. (2011). The QuickDASH score: a patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren’s surgery. Journal of Hand Therapy, 24(1), 15–20.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fan, Z. J., Smith, C. K., & Silverstein, B. A. (2008). Assessing Validity of the QuickDASH and SF-12 as Surveillance Tools among Workers with Neck or Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders. Journal of Hand Therapy, 21(4), 354–365.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fan, Z. J., Smith, C. K., & Silverstein, B. A. (2011). Responsiveness of the QuickDASH and SF-12 in Workers with Neck or Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders: One-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 234–243.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Gabel, C. P., Yelland, M., Melloh, M., & Burkett, B. (2009). A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders., 10, 161.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gabel, C. P., Michener, L. A., Melloh, M., & Burkett, B. (2010). Modification of the upper limb functional index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. Journal of Hand Therapy, 23(1), 41–51.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Mehta S, MacDermid JC, Carlesso LC, McPhee C. Concurrent validation of the DASH and the QuickDASH in comparison to neck-specific scales in patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(24):2150-6.

22.

Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18(6), 920–926.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Niekel, M. C., Lindenhovius, A. L., Watson, J. B., Vranceanu, A. M., & Ring, D. (2009). Correlation of DASH and QuickDASH with measures of psychological distress. Journal of Hand Surgery (American)., 34(8), 1499–1505.CrossRef

24.

Polson, K., Reid, D., McNair, P. J., & Larmer, P. (2010). Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Manual Therapy., 15(4), 404–407.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Roy, J. S., MacDermid, J. C., Amick, B. C., I. I. I., Shannon, H. S., McMurtry, R., Roth, J. H., et al. (2011). Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Physical Therapy, 91(2), 254–266.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Stover, B., Silverstein, B., Wickizer, T., Martin, D. P., & Kaufman, J. (2007). Accuracy of a disability instrument to identify workers likely to develop upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(2), 227–245.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Whalley, K., & Adams, J. (2009). The longitudinal validity of the quick and full version of the Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in musculoskeletal hand outpatients. Hand Therapy., 14(1), 22–25.CrossRef

28.

Wu, A., Edgar, D. W., & Wood, F. M. (2007). The QuickDASH is an appropriate tool for measuring the quality of recovery after upper limb burn injury. Burns, 33(7), 843–849.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Wong, J. Y. P., Fung, B. K. K., Chu, M. M. L., & Chan, R. K. Y. (2007). The use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in rehabilitation after acute traumatic hand injuries. Journal of Hand Therapy, 20(1), 49–56.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Fayad, F., Lefevre-Colau, M. M., Gautheron, V., Mace, Y., Fermanian, J., Mayoux-Benhamou, A., et al. (2009). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the French version of the questionnaire Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in shoulder disorders. Manual Therapy., 14(2), 206–212.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Flury, M., Schwyzer, H. K., & Simmen, B. R. (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. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1043–1051.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Varju, C., Balint, Z., Solyom, A. I., Farkas, H., Karpati, E., Berta, B., et al. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) questionnaire into Hungarian and investigation of its validity in patients with systemic sclerosis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 26(5), 776–783.PubMed

33.

Franchignoni, F., Ferriero, G., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Vercelli, S., & Brigatti, E. (2011). Psychometric properties of QuickDash a classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Manual Therapy, 16(2), 177–182.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Imaeda, T., Toh, S., Wada, T., Uchiyama, S., Okinaga, S., Kusunose, K., et al. (2006). Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand Version of the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH-JSSH) questionnaire. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 11(3), 248–253.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Itsubo, T., Uchiyama, S., Momose, T., Yasutomi, T., Imaeda, T., & Kato, H. (2009). Electrophysiological responsiveness and quality of life (QuickDASH, CTSI) evaluation of surgically treated carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic Science., 14(1), 17–23.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 7:44, 2006. 2006;44.

37.

Atroshi, I., Lyren, P. E., & Gummesson, C. (2009). The 6-item CTS symptoms scale: a brief outcomes measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. Quality Life Research, 18(3), 347–358.CrossRef

38.

Atroshi, I., Lyren, P. E., Ornstein, E., & Gummesson, C. (2011). The Six-Item CTS Symptoms Scale and Palmar Pain Scale in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (American), 36(5), 788–794.CrossRef

39.

Altan, L., Ercan, I., & Konur, S. (2010). Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the patient rated tennis elbow evaluation. Rheumatology International, 30(8), 1049–1054.PubMedCrossRef

40.

McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Nunnally JC. Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory..New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1978. p. 225-55.

42.

de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRef

43.

Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(8), 869–879.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis., 39(11), 897–906.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91.

46.

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Angst, F. (2011). The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 152.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.PubMedCrossRef

49.

MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, evaluation form. In: Law M, MacDermid JC (Eds). Evidence-Based Rehabilitation (pp.387-388).Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2008.

50.

MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, interpretation guide. In: Law M, MacDermid JC (Eds). Evidence-Based Rehabilitation (pp.389-392).Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2008.

51.

McDowell, I., & Jenkinson, C. (1996). Development standards for health measures. Journal of Health Services & Research Policy, 1(4), 238–246.

52.

Menezes Costa LC, Maher CG, McAuley JH, Costa LO. Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric testing. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(9):934-43.

53.

Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB. Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Quality of Life Research. 2011

54.

Abma, F. I., van der Klink, J. J., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Amick Iii BC, Bultmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and. Health, 38(1), 5–18.

55.

Moher, D., Jones, A., & Lepage, L. (2001). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA, 285(15), 1992–1995.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152(11), 726–732.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, UK: University Press.

Titel: Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review
verfasst von: Carol A. Kennedy
Dorcas E. Beaton
Peter Smith
Dwayne Van Eerd
Kenneth Tang
Taucha Inrig
Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
Denise Linton
Rachel Couban
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0362-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2013

Health status and (health-related) quality of life during the recovery of distal radius fractures: a systematic review

Patient-reported outcomes in the practice-based opportunities for weight reduction (POWER) trial

Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system

Factorial invariance of pediatric patient self-reported fatigue across age and gender: a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach utilizing the PedsQL™ Multidimensional Fatigue Scale

Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) questionnaire

Validation of a Dutch version of the Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS) for patients with multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands

Premium Partner