37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patient-rated outcome measures (PROMs) are an important part of clinical decision-making in rehabilitation of patients with shoulder pain. The Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was designed to measure physical disability and symptoms in patients with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity and is one the most commonly used outcome measures for patients with shoulder pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the DASH in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.

          Methods

          Sixty-three patients diagnosed with shoulder impingement syndrome at an orthopaedic outpatient clinic were included in the study. Internal consistency of the DASH was evaluated by the Cronbach’s alpha and item-to-total correlations. Test-retest reliability was analyzed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA) according to the Bland Altman method. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimally detectable change (MDC) were calculated for the total DASH score. Construct validity was evaluated by testing six a priori hypotheses for the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the DASH and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).

          Results

          Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha of the DASH was 0.93 and item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.36 to 0.81. ICC was 0.89. The 95 percent LoA was calculated to be between -11.9 and 14.1. SEM was 4.7 and MDC 13.1. Construct validity: Eighty-three percent of the a priori hypotheses of correlation were confirmed. The DASH showed a high positive correlation of 0.75 with the SPADI, a negative moderate correlation of -0.48 to -0.62 with physical functioning, bodily pain and physical component summary of the SF-36 and a moderate positive correlation of 0.58 with the NPRS. DASH correlated higher with the physical component summary than with the mental component summary of the SF-36.

          Conclusions

          The Norwegian version of the DASH is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM.

          Reliability, the consistency of a test or measurement, is frequently quantified in the movement sciences literature. A common metric is the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, the SEM, which can be calculated from the ICC, is also frequently reported in reliability studies. However, there are several versions of the ICC, and confusion exists in the movement sciences regarding which ICC to use. Further, the utility of the SEM is not fully appreciated. In this review, the basics of classic reliability theory are addressed in the context of choosing and interpreting an ICC. The primary distinction between ICC equations is argued to be one concerning the inclusion (equations 2,1 and 2,k) or exclusion (equations 3,1 and 3,k) of systematic error in the denominator of the ICC equation. Inferential tests of mean differences, which are performed in the process of deriving the necessary variance components for the calculation of ICC values, are useful to determine if systematic error is present. If so, the measurement schedule should be modified (removing trials where learning and/or fatigue effects are present) to remove systematic error, and ICC equations that only consider random error may be safely used. The use of ICC values is discussed in the context of estimating the effects of measurement error on sample size, statistical power, and correlation attenuation. Finally, calculation and application of the SEM are discussed. It is shown how the SEM and its variants can be used to construct confidence intervals for individual scores and to determine the minimal difference needed to be exhibited for one to be confident that a true change in performance of an individual has occurred.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

            Changes in scores on health status questionnaires are difficult to interpret. Several methods to determine minimally important changes (MICs) have been proposed which can broadly be divided in distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Comparisons of these methods have led to insight into essential differences between these approaches. Some authors have tried to come to a uniform measure for the MIC, such as 0.5 standard deviation and the value of one standard error of measurement (SEM). Others have emphasized the diversity of MIC values, depending on the type of anchor, the definition of minimal importance on the anchor, and characteristics of the disease under study. A closer look makes clear that some distribution-based methods have been merely focused on minimally detectable changes. For assessing minimally important changes, anchor-based methods are preferred, as they include a definition of what is minimally important. Acknowledging the distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important changes is useful, not only to avoid confusion among MIC methods, but also to gain information on two important benchmarks on the scale of a health status measurement instrument. Appreciating the distinction, it becomes possible to judge whether the minimally detectable change of a measurement instrument is sufficiently small to detect minimally important changes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              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.

              The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure was developed to evaluate disability and symptoms in single or multiple disorders of the upper limb at one point or at many points in time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the DASH in a group of diverse patients and to compare the results with those obtained with joint-specific measures. Two hundred patients with either wrist/hand or shoulder problems were evaluated by use of questionnaires before treatment, and 172 (86%) were re-evaluated 12 weeks after treatment. Eighty-six patients also completed a test-retest questionnaire three to five days after the initial (baseline) evaluation. The questionnaire package included the DASH, the Brigham (carpal tunnel) questionnaire, the SPADI (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index), and other markers of pain and function. Correlations or t-tests between the DASH and the other measures were used to assess construct validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and other summary statistics. Responsiveness was described using standardized response means, receiver operating characteristics curves, and correlations between change in DASH score and change in scores of other measures. Standard response means were used to compare DASH responsiveness with that of the Brigham questionnaire and the SPADI in each region. The DASH was found to correlate with other measures (r > 0.69) and to discriminate well, for example, between patients who were working and those who were not (p<0.0001). Test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96) exceeded guidelines. The responsiveness of the DASH (to self-rated or expected change) was comparable with or better than that of the joint-specific measures in the whole group and in each region. Evidence was provided of the validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the DASH. This study also demonstrated that the DASH had validity and responsiveness in both proximal and distal disorders, confirming its usefulness across the whole extremity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                1471-2474
                2014
                12 March 2014
                : 15
                : 78
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Martina Hansens Hospital, Pb 823, 1346 Sandvika, Bærum, Norway
                [2 ]Norwegian Research Center for Active Rehabilitation (NAR), Department of Orthopaedics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Pb 4, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
                Article
                1471-2474-15-78
                10.1186/1471-2474-15-78
                3975243
                24618360
                3af2f742-3cf3-4a17-92f1-0cba3b0a7cfb
                Copyright © 2014 Haldorsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 27 September 2013
                : 4 March 2014
                Categories
                Research Article

                Orthopedics
                shoulder impingement syndrome,outcome measure,dash,test-retest reliability,internal consistency,construct validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article