BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To adapt the Taiwan version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The DASH questionnaire was adapted through the process of translation, back-translation, and expert review. Eighty two subjects with upper extremity disorders were recruited in a medical center and 46 of these patients could be followed up to assess retest reliability in less than 10 days. Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to evaluate the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Principal axis factor analysis was performed to assess the factor-construct validity, while concurrent validity was tested with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) Taiwan version questionnaire. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the Taiwan version of the DASH questionnaire was high (Cronbach alpha = 0.96) and the test-retest reliability was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9). Principal axis factor analysis confirmed the 1-factor model. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the DASH questionnaire to the SF-36 showed a correlation with physical component summary scores rather than mental component summary scores. Bodily pain, physical function and role-physical scores among the SF-36 subscales were most significantly correlated with DASH disability/symptom scores. CONCLUSION: The Taiwan version of the DASH questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of health status for patients with upper-extremity disorders.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To adapt the Taiwan version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The DASH questionnaire was adapted through the process of translation, back-translation, and expert review. Eighty two subjects with upper extremity disorders were recruited in a medical center and 46 of these patients could be followed up to assess retest reliability in less than 10 days. Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to evaluate the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Principal axis factor analysis was performed to assess the factor-construct validity, while concurrent validity was tested with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) Taiwan version questionnaire. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the Taiwan version of the DASH questionnaire was high (Cronbach alpha = 0.96) and the test-retest reliability was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9). Principal axis factor analysis confirmed the 1-factor model. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the DASH questionnaire to the SF-36 showed a correlation with physical component summary scores rather than mental component summary scores. Bodily pain, physical function and role-physical scores among the SF-36 subscales were most significantly correlated with DASH disability/symptom scores. CONCLUSION: The Taiwan version of the DASH questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of health status for patients with upper-extremity disorders.