OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) for group comparisons in scleroderma trials, and to determine if the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ) visual analog scales confer any measurement advantage over the HAQ DI. METHODS: A computer search for articles describing the use of the HAQ DI and SHAQ in scleroderma was performed. Evidence supporting the sensibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of these measures was evaluated. RESULTS: The SHAQ has incremental face and content validity over the HAQ DI because it addresses scleroderma-specific manifestations that also contribute to disability. The HAQ DI has good concurrent validity, construct validity, and predictive validity. Whether SHAQ confers incremental construct, concurrent, or predictive validity over the HAQ DI is uncertain. The HAQ DI appears more reliable than the SHAQ; however, reliability studies provide insufficient data to ascertain if minimum standards have been achieved. Responsiveness of the HAQ DI subscales has been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: The SHAQ has incremental face and content validity over the HAQ DI. The HAQ DI has greater reliability and demonstrated construct, concurrent, and predictive validity. Further investigation into the measurement properties of the HAQ DI and SHAQ visual analog scales, and their relation to the required standards of measurement is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) for group comparisons in scleroderma trials, and to determine if the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ) visual analog scales confer any measurement advantage over the HAQ DI. METHODS: A computer search for articles describing the use of the HAQ DI and SHAQ in scleroderma was performed. Evidence supporting the sensibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of these measures was evaluated. RESULTS: The SHAQ has incremental face and content validity over the HAQ DI because it addresses scleroderma-specific manifestations that also contribute to disability. The HAQ DI has good concurrent validity, construct validity, and predictive validity. Whether SHAQ confers incremental construct, concurrent, or predictive validity over the HAQ DI is uncertain. The HAQ DI appears more reliable than the SHAQ; however, reliability studies provide insufficient data to ascertain if minimum standards have been achieved. Responsiveness of the HAQ DI subscales has been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: The SHAQ has incremental face and content validity over the HAQ DI. The HAQ DI has greater reliability and demonstrated construct, concurrent, and predictive validity. Further investigation into the measurement properties of the HAQ DI and SHAQ visual analog scales, and their relation to the required standards of measurement is needed.
Authors: Luiza F Rocha; Roberta G Marangoni; Percival D Sampaio-Barros; Mauricio Levy-Neto; Natalino H Yoshinari; Eloisa Bonfa; Virginia Steen; Sergio C Kowalski Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Sindhu R Johnson; Jaap Fransen; Dinesh Khanna; Murray Baron; Frank van den Hoogen; Thomas A Medsger; Christine A Peschken; Patricia E Carreira; Gabriela Riemekasten; Alan Tyndall; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Janet E Pope Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Sally Arai; Joseph Pidala; Iskra Pusic; Xiaoyu Chai; Samantha Jaglowski; Nandita Khera; Jeanne Palmer; George L Chen; Madan H Jagasia; Sebastian A Mayer; William A Wood; Michael Green; Teresa S Hyun; Yoshihiro Inamoto; Barry E Storer; David B Miklos; Howard M Shulman; Paul J Martin; Stefanie Sarantopoulos; Stephanie J Lee; Mary E D Flowers Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ivan Castellví; Saioa Eguiluz; Alejandro Escudero-Contreras; Juan José Ríos; Jaime Calvo-Alén; José Luis Callejas-Rubio; Carlos De la Puente; Carmen Pilar Simeón; Francisco Javier Narváez; Gerard Espinosa; Patricia E Carreira; Manuel Rubio-Rivas; Juan José Alegre; Alfredo Guillén-Del-Castillo; Jose Andrés Román-Ivorra; Vicent Fonollosa Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Sébastien Peytrignet; Christopher P Denton; Mark Lunt; Roger Hesselstrand; Luc Mouthon; Alan Silman; Xiaoyan Pan; Edith Brown; László Czirják; Jörg H W Distler; Oliver Distler; Kim Fligelstone; William J Gregory; Rachel Ochiel; Madelon Vonk; Codrina Ancuta; Voon H Ong; Dominique Farge; Marie Hudson; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Alexandra Balbir-Gurman; Øyvind Midtvedt; Alison C Jordan; Wendy Stevens; Pia Moinzadeh; Frances C Hall; Christian Agard; Marina E Anderson; Elisabeth Diot; Rajan Madhok; Mohammed Akil; Maya H Buch; Lorinda Chung; Nemanja Damjanov; Harsha Gunawardena; Peter Lanyon; Yasmeen Ahmad; Kuntal Chakravarty; Søren Jacobsen; Alexander J MacGregor; Neil McHugh; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Gabriela Riemekasten; Michael Becker; Janet Roddy; Patricia E Carreira; Anne Laure Fauchais; Eric Hachulla; Jennifer Hamilton; Murat Inanç; John S McLaren; Jacob M van Laar; Sanjay Pathare; Susanna Proudman; Anna Rudin; Joanne Sahhar; Brigitte Coppere; Christine Serratrice; Tom Sheeran; Douglas J Veale; Claire Grange; Georges-Selim Trad; Ariane L Herrick Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: S I E Liem; J M T A Meessen; R Wolterbeek; N Ajmone Marsan; M K Ninaber; T P M Vliet Vlieland; J K de Vries-Bouwstra Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-11-18 Impact factor: 2.631