Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (quickDASH)

Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 30-39

  Franchignoni, Franco ^a   Vercelli, Stefano ^a   Giordano, Andrea ^a   Sartorio, Francesco ^a   Bravini, Elisabetta ^b   Ferriero, Giorgio ^a  

^a IRCCS   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Disability evaluation; Musculoskeletal diseases; Outcome assessment; Psycho metrics; Rehabilitation; Upper extremity

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARM; ARM INJURY; ARTICLE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HAND INJURY; HUMAN; INJURY; ITALY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SHOULDER; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARM INJURIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HAND INJURIES; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SHOULDER; UPPER EXTREMITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904008380     PISSN: 01906011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4893     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. 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 (Hoboken). 2011;63 suppl 11:S174-S188. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/acr.20630.
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;14:128-146.
3. Beaton DE, vanEerd D, Smith P, et al. Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:487-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.012.
4. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038-1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02060.
5. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002;21:1331-1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1108.
6. Bot SD, Terwee CB, vanderWindt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, deVet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:335-341. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1136/ard.2003.007724.
7. Cook CE. Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16:E82-E83.
8. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
9. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1257-1267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9409-3.
10. de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:37-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.011.
11. deVet 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.
12. Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Vercelli S, Brigatti E. Psychometric properties of QuickDASH - a classical test theory and Rasch analysis study. Man Ther. 2011;16:177-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.math. 2010.10.004.
13. Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Vercelli S, Pascariello B, Ferriero G. Suggestions for refine-ment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH): a factor analysis and Rasch validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1370-1377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010. 06.022.
14. Gabel CP, Michener LA, Melloh M, Burkett B. Modification of the upper limb functional index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. J Hand Ther. 2010;23:41-51; quiz 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2009.09. 007.
15. Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end mal practice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:97-98. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2340/16501977-0938.
16. 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 Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-44.
17. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical sig-nificance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371-383.
18. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602:: AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.
19. Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B. The American Academy of Ortho-paedic Surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:208-215.
20. Institute for Work and Health. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure. Available at: http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/Accessed July 25, 2013.
21. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clini-cally important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.
22. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163-170.
23. Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Smith P, et al. Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2509-2547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0362-4.
24. Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH and QuickDASH Out-come Measure User's Manual. 3rd ed. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Work and Health; 2011.
25. Lehman LA, Sindhu BS, Shechtman O, Romero S, Velozo CA. A comparison of the ability of two upper extremity assessments to measure change in function. J Hand Ther. 2010;23:31- 39; quiz 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2009.09.006.
26. Mann BJ, Gosens T, Lyman S. Quantifying clinically significant change: a brief review of methods and presentation of a hybrid approach. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2385-2393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546512457346.
27. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015.
28. Ostelo RW, deVet HC, Knol DL, vandenBrandt PA. 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:268-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.005.
29. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, et al. 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.
30. Polson K, Reid D, McNair PJ, Larmer P. Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther. 2010;15:404-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2010.03.008.
31. Puga VO, Lopes AD, Shiwa SR, Alouche SR, Costa LO. Clinimetric testing supports the use of 5 questionnaires adapted into Brazilian Portuguese for patients with shoulder disorders. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43:404-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4441.
32. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2007.03.012.
33. Romero S, Bishop MD, Velozo CA, Light K. Minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale and Dynamic Gait Index in older persons at risk for falling. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2011;34:131-137.
34. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:623-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.24396.
35. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008-1018. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007.
36. Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differ-ences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38:641-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032.
37. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109-1123.
38. Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH. Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther. 1997;77:745-750.
39. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. When minimal detectable change exceeds a diagnostic test-based threshold change value for an outcome measure: resolving the conflict. Phys Ther. 2012;92:1338-1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj. 20120002.
40. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:524-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010.
41. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:28-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024.
42. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:374-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.009.
43. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91:675- 688. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100229.
44. Wright AA, Cook CE, Baxter GD, Dockerty JD, Abbott JH. A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:319-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2011.3515.