OBJECTIVE: The AUStralian CANadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) is a self-report assessment of hand pain, stiffness, and function. Prior studies have examined its validity in small clinical samples and family-based samples. This study examined measurement properties of the AUSCAN in a large, community-based sample, extending knowledge about the scale's generalizability. METHODS: Participants (N=1730, mean age=61 years, 65% female, 30% African American) were enrolled in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. We examined the internal consistency, construct validity, and factor structure of the AUSCAN among the total sample, as well as in subgroups according to gender, race, presence of hand pain, and presence of radiographic hand osteoarthritis (OA). RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for the total scale and subscales among the full study sample and all subgroups (Cronbach's alphas=0.89-0.96). Construct validity was also supported, as grip and pinch strength were more strongly correlated with the AUSCAN function subscale than with the pain and stiffness subscales. Factor analysis showed that for the full sample and most subgroups, all pain items loaded on one factor (standardized regression coefficients 0.59-0.81) and all function items loaded on another (standardized regression coefficients 0.61-0.78), supporting the intended subscale structure of the scale. However, for African Americans, a different factor pattern emerged, with three function items loading on a factor with the pain items. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validity of the AUSCAN in a general sample of adults, as well as across demographic and clinical subgroups, although the subscale structures differed slightly by race.
OBJECTIVE: The AUStralian CANadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) is a self-report assessment of hand pain, stiffness, and function. Prior studies have examined its validity in small clinical samples and family-based samples. This study examined measurement properties of the AUSCAN in a large, community-based sample, extending knowledge about the scale's generalizability. METHODS:Participants (N=1730, mean age=61 years, 65% female, 30% African American) were enrolled in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. We examined the internal consistency, construct validity, and factor structure of the AUSCAN among the total sample, as well as in subgroups according to gender, race, presence of hand pain, and presence of radiographic hand osteoarthritis (OA). RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for the total scale and subscales among the full study sample and all subgroups (Cronbach's alphas=0.89-0.96). Construct validity was also supported, as grip and pinch strength were more strongly correlated with the AUSCAN function subscale than with the pain and stiffness subscales. Factor analysis showed that for the full sample and most subgroups, all pain items loaded on one factor (standardized regression coefficients 0.59-0.81) and all function items loaded on another (standardized regression coefficients 0.61-0.78), supporting the intended subscale structure of the scale. However, for African Americans, a different factor pattern emerged, with three function items loading on a factor with the pain items. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validity of the AUSCAN in a general sample of adults, as well as across demographic and clinical subgroups, although the subscale structures differed slightly by race.
Authors: N Bellamy; J Campbell; B Haraoui; R Buchbinder; K Hobby; J H Roth; J C MacDermid Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: N Bellamy; J Campbell; B Haraoui; E Gerecz-Simon; R Buchbinder; K Hobby; J C MacDermid Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Said A Ibrahim; Christopher J Burant; Mary Beth Mercer; Laura A Siminoff; C Kent Kwoh Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: V B Kraus; Y-J Li; E R Martin; J M Jordan; J B Renner; M Doherty; A G Wilson; R Moskowitz; M Hochberg; R Loeser; M Hooper; Scott Sundseth Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-07
Authors: L D Roorda; C A Jones; M Waltz; G J Lankhorst; L M Bouter; J W van der Eijken; W J Willems; I C Heyligers; D C Voaklander; K D Kelly; M E Suarez-Almazor Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Alice C Shapiro; Susan A Adlis; Kim Robien; Mark N Kirstein; Shuang Liang; Sara A Richter; Rachel E Lerner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ki Won Moon; Shin-Seok Lee; Jin Hyun Kim; Ran Song; Eun Young Lee; Yeong Wook Song; Nicholas Bellamy; Eun Bong Lee Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Thomas J McQuillan; Molly M Vora; Deborah E Kenney; Joseph J Crisco; Arnold-Peter C Weiss; Kerry A Ebert; Kathleen E Snelgrove; Alexandra Sarnowski; Amy L Ladd Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2017-09-21
Authors: Imran Aslam; Irina Perjar; Xiaoyan A Shi; Jordan B Renner; Virginia B Kraus; Yvonne M Golightly; Joanne M Jordan; Amanda E Nelson Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Zachary A Scherzer; Carolina Alvarez; Jordan B Renner; Louise B Murphy; Todd A Schwartz; Joanne M Jordan; Yvonne M Golightly; Amanda E Nelson Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Amanda E Nelson; Robert F DeVellis; Jordan B Renner; Todd A Schwartz; Philip G Conaghan; Virginia B Kraus; Joanne M Jordan Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Pavlos Bobos; Joy C MacDermid; Eleni C Boutsikari; Emily A Lalone; Louis Ferreira; Ruby Grewal Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.186