Dataset Information

Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, wrist pain, finger contracture, or tumor. Eighty-one subjects prospectively completed each questionnaire shortly before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Newman-Keuls multiple comparison tests. Responsiveness to clinical change was calculated using standardized response means. The DASH was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (0.77), wrist pain (0.61), and tumor (0.55); the MHQ was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (1.04), wrist pain (0.87), and finger contracture (0.62); and the PSFS was responsive for those with carpal tunnel syndrome (0.65) and finger contracture (0.64). The interval during which the highest responsiveness occurred for the carpal tunnel, wrist pain, and finger contracture groups was the preoperative to 6-month period. The tumor group experienced the highest responsiveness during the preoperative to 3-month period. Our results indicate that one or more of the instruments evaluated are suitable for outcomes research related to surgery to treat carpal tunnel syndrome, wrist pain, finger contracture, and tumor.

SUBMITTER: McMillan CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2724618 | biostudies-other | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to Afrikaans for the Western Cape, within the public health service context of South Africa. The aim of this study was to evaluate structural validity, internal consistency, and cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance of this new translation to increase applicability and clinical utility in a public health service context.MethodsDuring this cross-sectional study, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with parallel analysis and oblimin rotation. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, was employed to test model fit with X2 goodness-of-fit statistic, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI). Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha.Results109 women and 110 men (n = 219) completed the Afrikaans for the Western Cape and the South African English DASH questionnaire, used during the analysis. Unidimensionality of the Afrikaans for the Western Cape DASH questionnaire was not supported in the 218 questionnaires eligible for inclusion in the analysis [X2 (df) = 1799.10 (405); p value = < 0.01; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.126 (0.120-0.132); SRMR = 0.09 and CFI = 0.984]. EFA revealed a two-factor structure with Eigenvalues exceeding one explaining 55% and 7% of the variance. The two-factor structure of the Afrikaans for the Western Cape DASH questionnaire was supported during CFA. Cronbach's alpha revealed good internal consistency of both factors [factor 1 = 0.97 (0.96, 0.97) and factor 2 = 0.92 (0.90, 0.94)]. MGCFA conducted between 218 Afrikaans for the Western Cape DASH and 219 South African English DASH questionnaires (N = 437) revealed that the data supports configural, metric and scalar invariance models during initial model fit assessment. Subsequent hypotheses testing comparing the nested models revealed that scalar invariance holds.ConclusionThe Afrikaans for the Western Cape DASH questionnaire revealed a two-factor structure with good internal consistency across the two factors and demonstrated measurement invariance with the South African English DASH questionnaire.

Project description:BackgroundLimitations in upper limb functioning are common in Musculoskeletal disorders and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale (DASH) has gained widespread use in this context. However, various concerns have been raised about its construct validity and so this study seeks to examine this and other psychometric aspects of both the DASH and QuickDASH from a modern test theory perspective.MethodsParticipants in the study were eligible if they had a confirmed diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). They were mailed a questionnaire booklet which included the DASH. Construct validity was examined by fit to the Rasch measurement model. The degree of precision of both the DASH and QuickDASH were considered through their Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).ResultsThree hundred and thirty-seven subjects with confirmed RA took part, with a mean age of 62.0 years (SD12.1); 73.6% (n = 252) were female. The median standardized score on the DASH was 33 (IQR 17.5-55.0). Significant misfit of the DASH and QuickDASH was observed but, after accommodating local dependency among items in a two-testlet solution, satisfactory fit was obtained, supporting the unidimensionality of the total sets and the sufficiency of the raw (ordinal or standardized) scores.ConclusionHaving accommodated local response dependency in the DASH and QuickDASH item sets, their total scores are shown to be valid, given they satisfy the Rasch model assumptions. The Rasch transformation should be used whenever all items are used to calculate a change score, or to apply parametric statistics within an RA population.Significance and innovationsMost previous modern psychometric analyses of both the DASH and QuickDASH have failed to fully address the effect of a breach of the local independence assumption upon construct validity. Accommodating this problem by creating 'super items' or testlets, removes this effect and shows that both versions of the scale are valid and unidimensional, as applied with a bi-factor equivalent solution to an RA population. The Standard Error of Measurement of a scale can be biased by failing to take into account the local dependency in the data which inflates reliability and thus making the SEM appear better (i.e. smaller) than the true value without bias.

Dataset Information

Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets