Development of the QuickDASH: COmparison of three item-reduction approaches

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 87, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1038-1046

  Beaton, Dorcas E ^a   Wright, James G ^a,b   Katz, Jeffrey N ^a,c   Amadio, Peter ^d   Bombardier, Claire ^d   Cole, Donald ^d   Davis, Aileen ^d   Hudak, Pam ^d   Marx, Robert ^d   Hawker, Gillian ^d   Makela, Matti ^d   Punnett, Laura ^d  

^a INSTITUTE FOR WORK AND HEALTH   (Canada)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HAND DISEASE; HUMAN; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; QUICKDASH; RELIABILITY; SHOULDER INJURY; VALIDATION PROCESS; WRIST DISEASE;

EID: 20944437034     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02060     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Beaton DE, Davis AM, Hudak PL, 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;6:109-18.
2. 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;14:128-46.
3. McConnell S, Beaton DE, Bombardier C. The DASH outcome measure user's manual. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health; 1999.
4. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH. Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2000;25:330-40.
5. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
6. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293-307.
7. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602-8. Erratum in: Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:372.
8. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson S, Wright JG. Clinimetric and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:105-11.
9. Linacre JM, Wright BD. A user's guide to BIGSTEPS/Winsteps Rasch-model computer program. Chicago: MESA Press; 1998.
10. Wright BD. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. J Educ Meas. 1977;14:97-116.
11. Solway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH outcome measure user's manual. 2nd ed. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health; 2002.
12. Beaton DE. Are you better? Describing and explaining changes in health status in persons with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders [PhD dissertation]. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2000.
13. Marx R. A comparison of clinimetric and psychometric techniques for item reduction in the development of an upper extremity disability scale [MSc Thesis]. Toronto: University of Toronto; 1996.
14. Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1201-18.
15. Andiel C. Rasch analysis: a description of the model and related issues. Can J Rehabil. 1995;9:17-25.
16. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:945-52.
17. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:79-93.
18. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:239-46.
19. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542-7.