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

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Astrid Bergland²  Yngve Roe²  Ida Svege¹  Benjamin Haldorsen³ 

[1] Norwegian Research Center for Active Rehabilitation (NAR), Department of Orthopaedics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Pb 4, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway;Department of Physiotherapy, Martina Hansens Hospital, Pb 823, 1346 Sandvika, Bærum, Norway

关键词: Construct validity;    Internal consistency;    Test-retest reliability;    DASH;    Outcome measure;    Shoulder impingement syndrome;   

Others  :  1128676
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-78

 received in 2013-09-27, accepted in 2014-03-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Haldorsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bot SDM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DAWN, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HCW: Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 2004, 63:335-341.
• [2]Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J: Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res 2011, 63(Suppl 11):S174-S188.
• [3]Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D, Davies A, Hawker G, Katz JN, Makela M, Marx RG, Punnett L, Wright J: Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). Am J Ind Med 1996, 29:602-608.
• [4]Beaton DE, Davis AM, Hudak P, McConnell S: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now? Br J Hand Ther 2001, 6:109-118.
• [5]Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C: The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual. 3rd edition. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health; 2011.
• [6]The DASH outcome measure website http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/ webcite
• [7]Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ: Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Care Res 2009, 61:623-632.
• [8]Van der Windt DAWM, Koes BW, de Jong BA, Bouter LM: Shoulder disorders in general practice: incidence, patient characteristics, and management. Ann Rheum Dis 1995, 54:959-964.
• [9]Silva L, Andréu JL, Muñoz P, Pastrana M, Millán I, Sanz J, Barbadillo C, Fernández-Castro M: Accuracy of physical examination in subacromial impingement syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008, 47:679-683.
• [10]Bigliani LU, Levine WN: Current concepts review. Subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg 1997, 79:1854-1868.
• [11]Michener LA, McClure PW, Karduna AR: Anatomical and biomechanical mechanisms of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2003, 18:369-379.
• [12]McKenna SP, Doward LC: The translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health 2005, 8:89-91.
• [13]Hawkins RJ, Kennedy JC: Impingement syndrome in athletes. Am J Sports Med 1980, 8:151-158.
• [14]Finsen V: Norwegian version of the DASH questionnaire for evaluation of the arm, shoulder and hand. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2008, 128:1070. (In Norwegian)
• [15]Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y: Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 1991, 4:143-149.
• [16]Tveitå EK, Ekeberg OM, Juel NG, Bautz-Holter E: Responsiveness of the shoulder pain and disability index in patients with adhesive capsulitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:161. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Tveitå EK, Keller A, Juel NG, Brox JI: Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]SF-36.org http://www.sf-36.org/ webcite
• [19]Loge JH, Kaasa S, Hjermstad MJ, Kvien TK: Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 health survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1069-1076.
• [20]Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA: Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1978, 37:378-381.
• [21]Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA: Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18:920-926.
• [22]Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWN, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:34-42.
• [23]Field AP: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles, [Calif.]; London: SAGE; 2009.
• [24]Fleiss JL: The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.
• [25]Weir JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005, 19:231.
• [26]de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM: Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Meth Med Res 1999, 8:135-160.
• [28]Rowntree D: Statistics without tears: a primer for non-mathematicians. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2004.
• [29]Offenbächer M, Ewert T, Sangha O, Stucki G: Validation of a German version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH-G). Z Rheumatol 2003, 62:168-177.
• [30]Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B, Dahlgren E, Johansson A: The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire. Acta Orthop Scand 2000, 71:613-618.
• [31]Themistocleous GS, Goudelis G, Kyrou I, Chloros GD, Krokos A, Galanos A, Gerostathopoulos NE, Soucacos PN: Translation into Greek, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH). J Hand Ther 2006, 19:350-357.
• [32]Christie A, Hagen KB, Mowinckel P, Dagfinrud H: Methodological properties of six shoulder disability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009, 18:89-95.
• [33]Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg 2002, 84:208-215.
• [34]Durand MJ, Vachon B, Hong QN, Loisel P: The cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH questionnaire in Canadian French. J Hand Ther 2005, 18:34-39.
• [35]Lee EWC, Lau JSY, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK: Evaluation of the Chinese version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-HKPWH): cross-cultural adaptation process, internal consistency and reliability study. J Hand Ther 2004, 17:417-423.
• [36]Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Romanini E, Zanoli G, Amadio PC, Campi A: Italian version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Br 2003, 28:179-186.
• [37]Imaeda T, Toh S, Nakao Y, Nishida J, Hirata H, Ijichi M, Kohri C, Nagano A: Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. J Orthop Sci 2005, 10:353-359.
• [38]Fayad F, Lefevre-Colau MM, Macé Y, Fermanian J, Mayoux-Benhamou A, Roren A, Rannou F, Roby-Brami A, Gautheron V, Revel M, Poiraudeau S: Validation of the French version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (F-DASH). Joint Bone Spine 2008, 75:195-200.
• [39]Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Abedi M, Askary-Ashtiani A, Karimi A, Khorsandi A, Mehdian H: Cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure. Clin Rehabil 2008, 22:749-757.
• [40]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, 14:128-142.
• [41]Orfale AG, Araújo PMP, Ferraz MB, Natour J: Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res 2005, 38:293.
• [42]Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, O’Brien PJ: The reliability and validity of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand, EuroQol-5D, health utilities index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010, 19:342-348.
• [43]Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF: A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:730-735.
• [44]de Vet HCW: The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:804-805.
• [45]Beaton DE, van Eerd D, Smith P, van der Velde G, Cullen K, Kennedy CA, Hogg-Johnson S: Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:487-496.
• [46]Roe Y, Soberg HL, Bautz-Holter E, Ostensjo S: A systematic review of measures of shoulder pain and functioning using the International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013, 14:73. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, McGillivary GR: Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg Am 2002, 27:537-541.
• [48]Raven EEJ, Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, van Montfoort DO, Pöll RG, Blankevoort L, Tak PP: Construct validity and reliability of the disability of arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire for upper extremity complaints in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008, 35:2334-2338.
• [49]Lee EWC, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK: Construct validity of the Chinese version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-HKPWH). J Hand Surg Br 2005, 30:29-34.
• [50]Aasheim T, Finsen V: The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. Normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2014, 39:140-144.
• [51]Jester A, Harth A, Germann G: Measuring levels of upper-extremity disability in employed adults using the DASH Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 2005, 30:1074. e1-1074.e10
• [52]Ostlie K, Franklin RJ, Skjeldal OH, Skrondal A, Magnus P: Assessing physical function in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees by combining the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Questionnaire and clinical examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 92:1636-1645.
• [53]de Witte PB, Henseler JF, Nagels J, Vliet Vlieland TP, Nelissen RG: The Western Ontario rotator cuff index in rotator cuff disease patients: a comprehensive reliability and responsiveness validation study. Am J Sports Med 2012, 40:1611-1619.
• [54]Roy JS, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ: Upper limb motor strategies in persons with and without shoulder impingement syndrome across different speeds of movement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008, 23:1227-1236.
• [55]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:737-745.