STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent validity study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and the QuickDASH in patients with neck pain in comparison with the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire (CSOQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. To examine the agreement between the DASH and the QuickDASH and assess whether the QuickDASH can be used instead of full DASH in patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NDI is commonly used for measuring neck-related disability in patients with neck pain; but it does not offer to assess the potential for upper extremity disability. METHODS: Patients with neck pain (N = 66) were assessed on one occasion. They completed the NDI and the DASH, and 42 of them completed the CSOQ. The QuickDASH scores were extracted from the full DASH. Correlations were tested between both versions of the DASH, the NDI, the subscales of the CSOQ, and the VAS-pain. Correlations were considered high with r >0.75. Ranked item difficulty analysis was performed for both versions of the DASH and the NDI. The Bland and Altman technique was used to assess the nature and size of score differences between 2 versions of the DASH. RESULTS: Item ranks identified the DASH and the QuickDASH items to be as problematic to patients as NDI items. Both the versions of DASH showed high correlation (0.82-0.83) with the NDI and moderate correlation with the CSOQ and VAS-pain. The mean QuickDASH scores were higher (2.77 points) compared to the full DASH. CONCLUSION: Though the QuickDASH reported higher disability compared to the full DASH in this patient group, high correlation between the QuickDASH and the NDI and agreement between both versions of the DASH provide preliminary evidence that the QuickDASH can be used to measure upper extremity disability in patients with neck pain.
STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent validity study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and the QuickDASH in patients with neck pain in comparison with the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire (CSOQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. To examine the agreement between the DASH and the QuickDASH and assess whether the QuickDASH can be used instead of full DASH in patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NDI is commonly used for measuring neck-related disability in patients with neck pain; but it does not offer to assess the potential for upper extremity disability. METHODS:Patients with neck pain (N = 66) were assessed on one occasion. They completed the NDI and the DASH, and 42 of them completed the CSOQ. The QuickDASH scores were extracted from the full DASH. Correlations were tested between both versions of the DASH, the NDI, the subscales of the CSOQ, and the VAS-pain. Correlations were considered high with r >0.75. Ranked item difficulty analysis was performed for both versions of the DASH and the NDI. The Bland and Altman technique was used to assess the nature and size of score differences between 2 versions of the DASH. RESULTS: Item ranks identified the DASH and the QuickDASH items to be as problematic to patients as NDI items. Both the versions of DASH showed high correlation (0.82-0.83) with the NDI and moderate correlation with the CSOQ and VAS-pain. The mean QuickDASH scores were higher (2.77 points) compared to the full DASH. CONCLUSION: Though the QuickDASH reported higher disability compared to the full DASH in this patient group, high correlation between the QuickDASH and the NDI and agreement between both versions of the DASH provide preliminary evidence that the QuickDASH can be used to measure upper extremity disability in patients with neck pain.
Authors: Carol A Kennedy; Dorcas E Beaton; Peter Smith; Dwayne Van Eerd; Kenneth Tang; Taucha Inrig; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Denise Linton; Rachel Couban Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N Lemeunier; S da Silva-Oolup; K Olesen; H Shearer; L J Carroll; O Brady; E Côté; P Stern; T Tuff; M Suri-Chilana; P Torres; J J Wong; D Sutton; K Murnaghan; P Côté Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Carolyn Chuang; Jacob Azurdia; David Asuzu; Kyle T Ragins; Kevin Tomany; Sohel Islam; Steven Williams; John Safanda; J Grant Thomson Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2017-04-28
Authors: Celeste L Overbeek; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Prakash Jayakumar; Michiel G Hageman; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.176