Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2022 | Lymphedema

Efficient and precise Ultra-QuickDASH scale measuring lymphedema impact developed using computerized adaptive testing

Authors: Cai Xu, Mark V. Schaverien, Joani M. Christensen, Chris J. Sidey-Gibbons

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 3/2022

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate and improve the accuracy and efficiency of the QuickDASH for use in assessment of limb function in patients with upper extremity lymphedema using modern psychometric techniques.

Method

We conducted confirmative factor analysis (CFA) and Mokken analysis to examine the assumption of unidimensionality for IRT model on data from 285 patients who completed the QuickDASH, and then fit the data to Samejima’s graded response model (GRM) and assessed the assumption of local independence of items and calibrated the item responses for CAT simulation.

Results

Initial CFA and Mokken analyses demonstrated good scalability of items and unidimensionality. However, the local independence of items assumption was violated between items 9 (severity of pain) and 11 (sleeping difficulty due to pain) (Yen’s Q3 = 0.46) and disordered thresholds were evident for item 5 (cutting food). After addressing these breaches of assumptions, the re-analyzed GRM with the remaining 10 items achieved an improved fit. Simulation of CAT administration demonstrated a high correlation between scores on the CAT and the QuickDash (r = 0.98). Items 2 (doing heavy chores) and 8 (limiting work or daily activities) were the most frequently used. The correlation among factor scores derived from the QuickDASH version with 11 items and the Ultra-QuickDASH version with items 2 and 8 was as high as 0.91.

Conclusion

By administering just these two best performing QuickDash items we can obtain estimates that are very similar to those obtained from the full-length QuickDash without the need for CAT technology.

Available only for authorised users

Jester, A., Harth, A., Wind, G., Germann, G., & Sauerbier, M. (2005). Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire: Determining functional activity profiles in patients with upper extremity disorders. Journal of Hand Surgery, 30(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.08.008CrossRef

Wu, A., Edgar, D. W., & Wood, F. M. (2007). The QuickDASH is an appropriate tool for measuring the quality of recovery after upper limb burn injury. Burns, 33(7), 843–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2007.03.015CrossRefPubMed

Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18(6), 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015CrossRefPubMed

Beaton, D. E., Wright, J. G., Katz, J. N., Amadio, P., Bombardier, C., Cole, D., Davis, A., Hudak, P., Marx, R., Hawker, G., Makela, M., & Punnett, L. (2005). Development of the QuickDASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—Series A, 87(5), 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02060CrossRef

Gabel, C. P., Michener, L. A., Melloh, M., & Burkett, B. (2010). Modification of the upper limb functional index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. Journal of Hand Therapy, 23(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2009.09.007CrossRefPubMed

Institute for Work & Health. (2012). The DASH and QuickDASH e-Bulltine/Fall 2012. https://dash.iwh.on.ca/dash-e-bulletin. Accessed 18 Dec 2020

Harrington, S., Michener, L. A., Kendig, T., Miale, S., & George, S. Z. (2014). Patient-reported upper extremity outcome measures used in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.022CrossRefPubMed

Dawes, D. J., Meterissian, S., Goldberg, M., & Mayo, N. E. (2008). Impact of lymphoedema on arm function and health-related quality of life in women following breast cancer surgery. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40(8), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0232CrossRefPubMed

Pinto, M., Gimigliano, F., Tatangelo, F., Megna, M., Izzo, F., Gimigliano, R., & Iolascon, G. (2013). Upper limb function and quality of life in breast cancer related lymphedema: A cross-sectional study. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 49(5), 665–673.PubMed

10.

Smoot, B., Wong, J., Cooper, B., Wanek, L., Topp, K., Byl, N., & Dodd, M. (2010). Upper extremity impairments in women with or without lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 4(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-010-0118-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Park, J. E., Jang, H. J., & Seo, K. S. (2012). Quality of life, upper extremity function and the effect of lymphedema treatment in breast cancer related lymphedema patients. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2012.36.2.240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Oh, S. H., Ryu, S. H., Jeong, H. J., Lee, J. H., & Sim, Y. J. (2019). Effects of different bandaging methods for treating patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(6), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2019.43.6.677CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Gibbons, C., Bower, P., Lovell, K., Valderas, J., & Skevington, S. (2016). Electronic quality of life assessment using computer-adaptive testing. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(9), e240. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6053CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Loe, B. S., Stillwell, D., & Gibbons, C. (2017). Computerized adaptive testing provides reliable and efficient depression measurement using the CES-D scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(9), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7453CrossRef

15.

Fu, M. R., Cleland, C. M., Guth, A. A., Kayal, M., Haber, J., Cartwright, F., Kleinman, R., Kang, Y., Scagliola, J., & Axelrod, D. (2013). L-Dex ratio in detecting breast cancer-related lymphedema: Reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. Lymphology, 46(2), 85–96.PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Barrio, A. V., Eaton, A., & Frazier, T. G. (2015). A prospective validation study of bioimpedance with volume displacement in early-stage breast cancer patients at risk for lymphedema. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 22(S3), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4683-0CrossRefPubMedCentral

17.

Ridner, S. H., Dietrich, M. S., Spotanski, K., Doersam, J. K., Cowher, M. S., Taback, B., McLaughlin, S., Ajkay, N., Boyages, J., Koelmeyer, L., Desnyder, S., Shah, C., & Vicini, F. (2018). A prospective study of L-Dex values in breast cancer patients pretreatment and through 12 months postoperatively. Lymphatic Research and Biology, 16(5), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2017.0070CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Stout Gergich, N. L., Pfalzer, L. A., McGarvey, C., Springer, B., Gerber, L. H., & Soballe, P. (2008). Preoperative assessment enables the early diagnosis and successful treatment of lymphedema. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, 112(12), 2809–2819. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23494CrossRef

19.

Specht, M. C., Miller, C. L., Russell, T. A., Horick, N., Skolny, M. N., O’Toole, J. A., Jammallo, L. S., Niemierko, A., Sadek, B. T., Shenouda, M. N., Finkelstein, D. M., Smith, B. L., & Taghian, A. G. (2013). Defining a threshold for intervention in breast cancer-related lymphedema: What level of arm volume increase predicts progression? Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 140(3), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2655-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420CrossRefPubMed

21.

Beaton, D. E., Davis, A. M., Hudak, P., & Mcconnell, S. (2001). The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) outcome measure: What do we know about it now? The British Journal of Hand Therapy, 6(4), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/175899830100600401CrossRef

22.

Stochl, J., Jones, P. B., & Croudace, T. J. (2012). Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: A non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Samejima, F. (1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 17(4), 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.xCrossRef

24.

Forero, C. G., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2009). Estimation of IRT graded response models: Limited versus full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14(3), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015825CrossRefPubMed

25.

Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.xCrossRef

26.

Cai, L., & Hansen, M. (2013). Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02050.xCrossRef

27.

Davey, T. (2011). A Guide to Computer Adaptive Testing Systems. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington: DC. https://www.nnstoy.org/download/technology/A Guide to Computer Adaptive Testing Systems.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2020

28.

Gibbons, C. J., & Skevington, S. M. (2018). Adjusting for cross-cultural differences in computer-adaptive tests of quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 27(4), 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1738-7CrossRefPubMed

29.

Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J. (2009). Comparison of CAT item selection criteria for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(6), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621608327801CrossRefPubMed

30.

Choi, S. W. (2009). Firestar: Computerized adaptive testing simulation program for polytomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(8), 644–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621608329892CrossRef

31.

R Core Team. R-project. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 3 Jan 2021

32.

Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of local dependence in the rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520CrossRefPubMed

33.

Keast, D. H., Moffatt, C., & Janmohammad, A. (2019). Lymphedema impact and prevalence international study: The canadian data. Lymphatic Research and Biology, 17(2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2019.0014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Schmider, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., & Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust?: Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016CrossRef

35.

Scalise, K., & Allen, D. D. (2015). Use of open-source software for adaptive measurement: Concerto as an R-based computer adaptive development and delivery platform. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68(3), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12057CrossRef

Title: Efficient and precise Ultra-QuickDASH scale measuring lymphedema impact developed using computerized adaptive testing
Authors: Cai Xu
Mark V. Schaverien
Joani M. Christensen
Chris J. Sidey-Gibbons
Publication date: 01-03-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Lymphedema
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02979-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Efficient and precise Ultra-QuickDASH scale measuring lymphedema impact developed using computerized adaptive testing

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review

Measurement properties of the ICECAP-A capability well-being instrument among dermatological patients

Maintenance of high quality of life as an indicator of resilience during COVID-19 social distancing among community-dwelling older adults in Finland

The impact of CNS-directed treatment on quality of life in childhood cancer survivors

Health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients compared to cancer survivors and age-matched women in the general population in Vietnam

Assessing anger and irritability in children: psychometric evaluation and normative data for the German version of the PROMIS® Parent Proxy Anger Scale