Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

A Thai version of the Michigan hand questionnaire (Thai MHQ): an investigation of the psychometric properties

Authors: Pichitchai Atthakomol, Worapaka Manosroi, Saran Sanguanrungsirikul, Siraphop Punoppamas, Sirapat Benjachaya, Siam Tongprasert, Tinakon Wongpakaran

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) is widely used to assess the hand/wrist conditions. We translated the original version into Thai (Thai MHQ) and evaluated its psychometric properties.

Methods

After receiving permission, the original MHQ was translated and cross-culturally adapted to Thai following standard guidelines. Two hundred and seventeen patients who had hand/wrist injuries or disorders were included in the study. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Spearman’s rank correlation among the subscales of Thai MHQ, Thai DASH and Thai EQ-5D-5L and also confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to explore construct validity. The standardized response mean (SRM) was used to evaluate the responsiveness of the Thai MHQ.

Results

All subscales showed an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha (0.79–0.98). The test-retest reliability of each subscale was good (ICC = 0.83–0.95). In related dimensions, strong correlation was demonstrated between the Activities of daily living subscale of the Thai MHQ and the Common activities subscale in the Thai DASH (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001). For unrelated dimensions, a weak correlation was found between the Aesthetics subscale in the Thai MHQ and the Mobility subscale in the Thai EQ-5D-5L (r = − 0.13, P = 0.05). The Thai MHQ had strong correlation with Thai DASH (r = − 0.79, P < 0.0001) and Thai EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.63, P < 0.0001). CFA showed that the 6-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. The SRM of the Thai MHQ was 0.78, indicating relatively large responsiveness. The MIC of Thai MHQ using distribution methods (SEM) was 5.2.

Conclusions

The Thai MHQ provides adequate internal consistency in all subscales as well as good construct validity and reliability for Thai patients and a relatively large standardized response mean at 2 months after treatment.
Literature
1.
Ootes D, Lambers KT, Ring DC. The epidemiology of upper extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department in the United States. Hand (N Y). 2012;7(1):18–22.CrossRef
2.
Van Tassel DC, Owens BD, Wolf JM. Incidence estimates and demographics of scaphoid fracture in the U.S. population. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(8):1242–5.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Feehan LM, Sheps SB. Incidence and demographics of hand fractures in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based study. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(7):1068–74.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Singer AJ, Thode HC Jr, Hollander JE. National trends in ED lacerations between 1992 and 2002. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24(2):183–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Larsen CF, Mulder S, Johansen AM, Stam C. The epidemiology of hand injuries in the Netherlands and Denmark. Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(4):323–7.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ferree S, van der Vliet QMJ, Nawijn F, Bhashyam AR, Houwert RM, Leenen LPH, et al. Epidemiology of distal radius fractures in polytrauma patients and the influence of high traumatic energy transfer. Injury. 2018;49(3):630–5.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):277–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
9.
Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(11):1585–92.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(4):575–87.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The upper extremity collaborative group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
MacDermid JC. Development of a scale for patient rating of wrist pain and disability. J Hand Ther. 1996;9(2):178–83.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Metcalf C, Adams J, Burridge J, Yule V, Chappell P. A review of clinical upper limb assessments within the framework of the WHO ICF. Musculoskelet Care. 2007;5(3):160–73.CrossRef
14.
15.
Dogu B, Usen A, Kuran B, Yilmaz F, Sirzai H. Comparison of responsiveness of Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire, disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire, and Duruoz hand index in patients with traumatic hand injury. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2019;32(1):111–7.PubMedCrossRef
16.
McMillan CR, Binhammer PA. Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, the Michigan hand questionnaire and the patient-specific functional scale following hand and wrist surgery. Hand (N Y). 2009;4(3):311–8.CrossRef
17.
Dias JJ, Rajan RA, Thompson JR. Which questionnaire is best? The reliability, validity and ease of use of the patient evaluation measure, the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand and the Michigan hand outcome measure. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2008;33(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Poole JL, Gonzales I, Tedesco T. Self-reports of hand function in persons with diabetes. Occup Ther Health Care. 2010;24(3):239–48.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Waljee JF, Chung KC, Kim HM, Burns PB, Burke FD, Wilgis EF, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the Michigan hand questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter, international study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(11):1569–77.CrossRef
20.
Horng YS, Lin MC, Feng CT, Huang CH, Wu HC, Wang JD. Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire in patients with hand injury. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(3):430–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kotsis SV, Lau FH, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and physical measurements in outcome studies of distal radius fracture treatment. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(1):84–90.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Chatterjee JS, Price PE. Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the carpal tunnel questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(2):273–80.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Oksuz C, Akel BS, Oskay D, Leblebicioglu G, Hayran KM. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability process of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire in a Turkish population. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(3):486–92.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Meireles SM, Natour J, Batista DA, Lopes M, Skare TL. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire (MHQ) for Brazil: validation study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2014;132(6):339–47.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Roh YH, Yang BK, Noh JH, Baek GH, Song CH, Gong HS. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Michigan hand questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1497–503.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Oda T, Abe Y, Katsumi Y, Ohi H, Nakamura T, Inagaki K. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire: a comparison with the DASH and SF-36 questionnaires. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2016;21(1):72–7.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Knobloch K, Kuehn M, Papst S, Kraemer R, Vogt PM. German standardized translation of the michigan hand outcomes questionnaire for patient-related outcome measurement in Dupuytren disease. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):39e–40e.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire among Persian population. Hand Surg. 2015;20(1):25–31.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Koziej M, Trybus M, Mydlowska A, Salapa K, Gniadek M, Banach M, et al. The polish version of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, construct validity, and measurement error. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018;43(2):199–208.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Efanov JI, Shine JJ, Darwich R, Besner Morin C, Arsenault J, Harris PG, et al. French translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2018;37(2):86–90.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Hulkkonen S, Repo JP, Hakkinen A, Karppinen J, Ryhanen J. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Finnish version of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. Scand J Surg. 2020;109(2):159–65.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Dhippayom JP, Trevittaya P, Cheng ASK. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the patient-rated Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire for Thai patients. Occup Ther Int. 2018;2018:8319875.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRef
34.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Cronbach LJ. A case study of the split-half reliability coefficient. J Educ Psychol. 1946;37(8):473–80.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tongprasert S, Rapipong J, Buntragulpoontawee M. The cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH questionnaire in Thai (DASH-TH). J Hand Ther. 2014;27(1):49–54.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Buntragulpoontawee M, Phutrit S, Tongprasert S, Wongpakaran T, Khunachiva J. Construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the Thai version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-TH) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):208.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):3015–22.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Pattanaphesaj J. Health-related quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5L): measurement property testing and tis preference-based score in Thai population (doctoral dissertion): Mahidol University; 2014.
43.
Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin: Boston; 1998.
44.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
46.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hu LBP. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):424–53.CrossRef
48.
Hu LBP. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef
49.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. United States of America: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC; 2010.
50.
Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76(10):1109–23.CrossRefPubMed
51.
London DA, Stepan JG, Calfee RP. Determining the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):616–25.PubMedCrossRef
52.
van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LW, Castelein RM, Scholtes VA, Terwee CB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Testing. 2005;5(2):159–68.CrossRef
55.
Marks M, Audige L, Herren DB, Schindele S, Nelissen RG, Vliet Vlieland TP. Measurement properties of the German Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(2):245–52.PubMedCrossRef
56.
van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, de Jong Z, Wolterbeek R, Vliet Vlieland TP. Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire--Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1121–6.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Ilhanli I, Durmus D, Orekici G. Cultural adaptation of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: a Turkish version study. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2015;1(1):42–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Busuioc SA, Karim M, Efanov JI, Demers L, Izadpanah A, Harris P, et al. The Michigan hand questionnaire and brief Michigan hand questionnaire were successfully translated to Canadian French. J Hand Ther. 2018;31(4):564–7.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Chung BT, Morris SF. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Michigan hand questionnaire. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(2):176–81.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Schouffoer AA, van der Giesen FJ, Beaart-van de Voorde LJ, Wolterbeek R, Huizinga TW, Vliet Vlieland TP. Validity and responsiveness of the Michigan hand questionnaire in patients with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016;55(8):1386–93.CrossRef
61.
Wi SM, Gong HS, Bae KJ, Roh YH, Lee YH, Baek GH. Responsiveness of the Korean version of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. Clin Orthop Surg. 2014;6(2):203–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Thai version of the Michigan hand questionnaire (Thai MHQ): an investigation of the psychometric properties
Authors
Pichitchai Atthakomol
Worapaka Manosroi
Saran Sanguanrungsirikul
Siraphop Punoppamas
Sirapat Benjachaya
Siam Tongprasert
Tinakon Wongpakaran
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01548-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research

Validation of the Greek translation of the multicultural quality of life index (MQLI-gr)

Research

Relationship of different intensities of physical activity and quality of life in postmenopausal women

Research

Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the EQ-5D-5L in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a longitudinal study

Research

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with diabetes mellitus at the University of Gondar referral hospital

Research

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Yoruba version of the Back beliefs questionnaire among patients with chronic low-back pain

Study protocol

A new model of patient-reported outcome monitoring with a clinical feedback system in ostomy care: rationale, description and evaluation protocol