OBJECTIVE: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) has become the most common tool for measuring functional status in rheumatology. However, the HAQ is long (34 questions, including 20 concerning activities of daily living and 14 relating to the use of aids and devices) and somewhat burdensome to score, has some floor effects, and has psychometric problems relating to linearity and confusing items. We undertook this study to develop and validate a revised version of the HAQ (the HAQ-II). METHODS: Using Rasch analysis and a 31-question item bank, including 20 HAQ items, the 10-item HAQ-II was developed. Five original items from the HAQ were retained. We studied the HAQ-II in 14,038 patients with rheumatic disease over a 2-year period to determine its validity and reliability. RESULTS: The HAQ-II was reliable (reliability of 0.88, compared with 0.83 for the HAQ), measured disability over a longer scale than the HAQ, and had no nonfitting items and no gaps. Compared with the HAQ, modified HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 physical function scale, the HAQ-II was as well correlated or better correlated with clinical and outcome variables. The HAQ-II performed as well as the HAQ in a clinical trial and in prediction of mortality and work disability. The mean difference between the HAQ and HAQ-II scores was 0.02 units. CONCLUSION: The HAQ-II is a reliable and valid 10-item questionnaire that performs at least as well as the HAQ and is simpler to administer and score. Conversion from HAQ to HAQ-II and from HAQ-II to HAQ for research purposes is simple and reliable. The HAQ-II can be used in all places where the HAQ is now used, and it may prove to be easier to use in the clinic. Copyright 2004 American College of Rheumatology
OBJECTIVE: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) has become the most common tool for measuring functional status in rheumatology. However, the HAQ is long (34 questions, including 20 concerning activities of daily living and 14 relating to the use of aids and devices) and somewhat burdensome to score, has some floor effects, and has psychometric problems relating to linearity and confusing items. We undertook this study to develop and validate a revised version of the HAQ (the HAQ-II). METHODS: Using Rasch analysis and a 31-question item bank, including 20 HAQ items, the 10-item HAQ-II was developed. Five original items from the HAQ were retained. We studied the HAQ-II in 14,038 patients with rheumatic disease over a 2-year period to determine its validity and reliability. RESULTS: The HAQ-II was reliable (reliability of 0.88, compared with 0.83 for the HAQ), measured disability over a longer scale than the HAQ, and had no nonfitting items and no gaps. Compared with the HAQ, modified HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 physical function scale, the HAQ-II was as well correlated or better correlated with clinical and outcome variables. The HAQ-II performed as well as the HAQ in a clinical trial and in prediction of mortality and work disability. The mean difference between the HAQ and HAQ-II scores was 0.02 units. CONCLUSION: The HAQ-II is a reliable and valid 10-item questionnaire that performs at least as well as the HAQ and is simpler to administer and score. Conversion from HAQ to HAQ-II and from HAQ-II to HAQ for research purposes is simple and reliable. The HAQ-II can be used in all places where the HAQ is now used, and it may prove to be easier to use in the clinic. Copyright 2004 American College of Rheumatology
Authors: Divya N V Challa; Zoran Kvrgic; Cynthia S Crowson; Eric L Matteson; Thomas G Mason; Clement J Michet; Daniel E Schaffer; Kerry A Wright; John M Davis Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Jon T Giles; David Weber; Mary B Leonard; Babette S Zemel; Jin Long; Said Ibrahim; Patricia P Katz Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Alan M Jette; Christine M McDonough; Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Sippy Olarsch; Nancy Latham; Ronald K Hambleton; David Felson; Young-Jo Kim; David Hunter Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Yu M Tan; Mikkel Østergaard; Anthony Doyle; Nicola Dalbeth; Maria Lobo; Quentin Reeves; Elizabeth Robinson; William J Taylor; Peter B Jones; Karen Pui; Jamie Lee; Fiona M McQueen Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Tuulikki Sokka; Sergio Toloza; Maurizio Cutolo; Hannu Kautiainen; Heidi Makinen; Feride Gogus; Vlado Skakic; Humeira Badsha; Tõnu Peets; Asta Baranauskaite; Pál Géher; Ilona Ujfalussy; Fotini N Skopouli; Maria Mavrommati; Rieke Alten; Christof Pohl; Jean Sibilia; Andrea Stancati; Fausto Salaffi; Wojciech Romanowski; Danuta Zarowny-Wierzbinska; Dan Henrohn; Barry Bresnihan; Patricia Minnock; Lene Surland Knudsen; Johannes Wg Jacobs; Jaime Calvo-Alen; Juris Lazovskis; Geraldo da Rocha Castelar Pinheiro; Dmitry Karateev; Daina Andersone; Sylejman Rexhepi; Yusuf Yazici; Theodore Pincus Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 5.156