BACKGROUND: The QuickDASH, an abbreviated form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, uses a graded-adjectives ordinal measurement response scale. In order to improve the sensitivity of the measure and to make it compatible with widely used measures of pain and disability, a visual analog scale version was developed. The present study investigated the reliability of the new version over time when used for the evaluation of patients undergoing treatment. METHODS: A test-retest model with a two-day interval was used to evaluate a sample of thirty-eight consecutive patients in an interdisciplinary tertiary rehabilitation setting who were identified as having an upper extremity disorder. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient indicating test-retest reliability was 0.90 for the eleven-item QuickDASH visual analog scale questionnaire (without the work component) and 0.94 for the fifteen-item questionnaire (with the work component), neither of which was significantly different from the results reported for the original questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The QuickDASH visual analog scale questionnaire has acceptable reliability over time, and it can be used as an alternative to the original QuickDASH.
BACKGROUND: The QuickDASH, an abbreviated form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, uses a graded-adjectives ordinal measurement response scale. In order to improve the sensitivity of the measure and to make it compatible with widely used measures of pain and disability, a visual analog scale version was developed. The present study investigated the reliability of the new version over time when used for the evaluation of patients undergoing treatment. METHODS: A test-retest model with a two-day interval was used to evaluate a sample of thirty-eight consecutive patients in an interdisciplinary tertiary rehabilitation setting who were identified as having an upper extremity disorder. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient indicating test-retest reliability was 0.90 for the eleven-item QuickDASH visual analog scale questionnaire (without the work component) and 0.94 for the fifteen-item questionnaire (with the work component), neither of which was significantly different from the results reported for the original questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The QuickDASH visual analog scale questionnaire has acceptable reliability over time, and it can be used as an alternative to the original QuickDASH.
Authors: Jeffrey J Parr; Paul A Borsa; Roger B Fillingim; Mark D Tillman; Todd M Manini; Chris M Gregory; Steven Z George Journal: J Pain Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Tristan Pollon; Nicolas Reina; Stéphanie Delclaux; Paul Bonnevialle; Pierre Mansat; Nicolas Bonnevialle Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Julien Toulemonde; David Ancelin; Vadim Azoulay; Nicolas Bonnevialle; Michel Rongières; Pierre Mansat Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Justin M Hire; Joshua E Pniewski; Michelle L Dickston; Jeremy M Jacobs; Terry L Mueller; Brian E Abell; John A Bojescul Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2014-04
Authors: Haije Wind; Vincent Gouttebarge; P Paul F M Kuijer; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 3.015