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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 9/2013

01-11-2013 | Review

Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review

Authors: Carol A. Kennedy, Dorcas E. Beaton, Peter Smith, Dwayne Van Eerd, Kenneth Tang, Taucha Inrig, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Denise Linton, Rachel Couban

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To identify and synthesize evidence for the measurement properties of the QuickDASH, a shortened version of the 30-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) instrument.

Methods

This systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to critically appraise the measurement properties [using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)] of the QuickDASH and cross-cultural adaptations. A standard search strategy was conducted between 2005 (year of first publication of QuickDASH) and March 2011 in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL.

Results

The search identified 14 studies to include in the best evidence synthesis of the QuickDASH. A further 11 studies were identified on eight cross-cultural adaptation versions.

Conclusions

Many measurement properties of the QuickDASH have been evaluated in multiple studies and across most of the measurement properties. The best evidence synthesis of the QuickDASH English version suggests that this tool is performing well with strong positive evidence for reliability and validity (hypothesis testing), and moderate positive evidence for structural validity testing. Strong negative evidence was found for responsiveness due to lower correlations with global estimates of change. Information about the measurement properties of the cross-cultural adaptation versions is still lacking, or the available information is of poor overall methodological quality.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Beaton, D. E., Wright, J. G., & Katz, J. N. (2005). Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 87A(5), 1038–1046.CrossRef
2.
Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(6), 602–608.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.
4.
Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296–322.
5.
Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual. (Third) ed. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health. 2011.
6.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research [ePub ahead of print]. 2011
7.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Gibbons, E., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 82.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2006). Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 2.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Schellingerhout, J. M., Heymans, M. W., Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., Koes, B. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 87.PubMedCrossRef
14.
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(12):1290-9.
15.
Beaton, D. E., & Kennedy, C. A. (2005). Beyond return to work: Testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1869–1879.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Budd, H. R., Larson, D., Chojnowski, A., & Shepstone, L. (2011). The QuickDASH score: a patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren’s surgery. Journal of Hand Therapy, 24(1), 15–20.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fan, Z. J., Smith, C. K., & Silverstein, B. A. (2008). Assessing Validity of the QuickDASH and SF-12 as Surveillance Tools among Workers with Neck or Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders. Journal of Hand Therapy, 21(4), 354–365.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Fan, Z. J., Smith, C. K., & Silverstein, B. A. (2011). Responsiveness of the QuickDASH and SF-12 in Workers with Neck or Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders: One-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 234–243.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Gabel, C. P., Yelland, M., Melloh, M., & Burkett, B. (2009). A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders., 10, 161.PubMedCrossRef
20.
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), 41–51.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Mehta S, MacDermid JC, Carlesso LC, McPhee C. Concurrent validation of the DASH and the QuickDASH in comparison to neck-specific scales in patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(24):2150-6.
22.
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.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Niekel, M. C., Lindenhovius, A. L., Watson, J. B., Vranceanu, A. M., & Ring, D. (2009). Correlation of DASH and QuickDASH with measures of psychological distress. Journal of Hand Surgery (American)., 34(8), 1499–1505.CrossRef
24.
Polson, K., Reid, D., McNair, P. J., & Larmer, P. (2010). Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Manual Therapy., 15(4), 404–407.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Roy, J. S., MacDermid, J. C., Amick, B. C., I. I. I., Shannon, H. S., McMurtry, R., Roth, J. H., et al. (2011). Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Physical Therapy, 91(2), 254–266.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Stover, B., Silverstein, B., Wickizer, T., Martin, D. P., & Kaufman, J. (2007). Accuracy of a disability instrument to identify workers likely to develop upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(2), 227–245.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Whalley, K., & Adams, J. (2009). The longitudinal validity of the quick and full version of the Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in musculoskeletal hand outpatients. Hand Therapy., 14(1), 22–25.CrossRef
28.
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.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Wong, J. Y. P., Fung, B. K. K., Chu, M. M. L., & Chan, R. K. Y. (2007). The use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in rehabilitation after acute traumatic hand injuries. Journal of Hand Therapy, 20(1), 49–56.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Fayad, F., Lefevre-Colau, M. M., Gautheron, V., Mace, Y., Fermanian, J., Mayoux-Benhamou, A., et al. (2009). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the French version of the questionnaire Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in shoulder disorders. Manual Therapy., 14(2), 206–212.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Flury, M., Schwyzer, H. K., & Simmen, B. R. (2009). How sharp is the short QuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short form of the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire in the strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1043–1051.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Varju, C., Balint, Z., Solyom, A. I., Farkas, H., Karpati, E., Berta, B., et al. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) questionnaire into Hungarian and investigation of its validity in patients with systemic sclerosis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 26(5), 776–783.PubMed
33.
Franchignoni, F., Ferriero, G., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Vercelli, S., & Brigatti, E. (2011). Psychometric properties of QuickDash a classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Manual Therapy, 16(2), 177–182.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Imaeda, T., Toh, S., Wada, T., Uchiyama, S., Okinaga, S., Kusunose, K., et al. (2006). Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand Version of the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH-JSSH) questionnaire. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 11(3), 248–253.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Itsubo, T., Uchiyama, S., Momose, T., Yasutomi, T., Imaeda, T., & Kato, H. (2009). Electrophysiological responsiveness and quality of life (QuickDASH, CTSI) evaluation of surgically treated carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic Science., 14(1), 17–23.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 7:44, 2006. 2006;44.
37.
Atroshi, I., Lyren, P. E., & Gummesson, C. (2009). The 6-item CTS symptoms scale: a brief outcomes measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. Quality Life Research, 18(3), 347–358.CrossRef
38.
Atroshi, I., Lyren, P. E., Ornstein, E., & Gummesson, C. (2011). The Six-Item CTS Symptoms Scale and Palmar Pain Scale in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (American), 36(5), 788–794.CrossRef
39.
Altan, L., Ercan, I., & Konur, S. (2010). Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the patient rated tennis elbow evaluation. Rheumatology International, 30(8), 1049–1054.PubMedCrossRef
40.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Nunnally JC. Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory..New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1978. p. 225-55.
42.
de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRef
43.
Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(8), 869–879.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis., 39(11), 897–906.PubMedCrossRef
45.
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.
46.
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Angst, F. (2011). The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 152.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.PubMedCrossRef
49.
MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, evaluation form. In: Law M, MacDermid JC (Eds). Evidence-Based Rehabilitation (pp.387-388).Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2008.
50.
MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, interpretation guide. In: Law M, MacDermid JC (Eds). Evidence-Based Rehabilitation (pp.389-392).Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2008.
51.
McDowell, I., & Jenkinson, C. (1996). Development standards for health measures. Journal of Health Services & Research Policy, 1(4), 238–246.
52.
Menezes Costa LC, Maher CG, McAuley JH, Costa LO. Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric testing. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(9):934-43.
53.
Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB. Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Quality of Life Research. 2011
54.
Abma, F. I., van der Klink, J. J., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Amick Iii BC, Bultmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and. Health, 38(1), 5–18.
55.
Moher, D., Jones, A., & Lepage, L. (2001). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA, 285(15), 1992–1995.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152(11), 726–732.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, UK: University Press.
Metadata
Title
Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review
Authors
Carol A. Kennedy
Dorcas E. Beaton
Peter Smith
Dwayne Van Eerd
Kenneth Tang
Taucha Inrig
Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
Denise Linton
Rachel Couban
Publication date
01-11-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0362-4

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

Quality of Life Research 9/2013 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Measurement bias of the SF-36 Health Survey in older adults with chronic conditions

OriginalPaper

Deriving clinically meaningful cut-scores for fatigue in a cohort of breast cancer survivors: a Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) Study

OriginalPaper

Quality of life, human insecurity, and distress among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip before and after the Winter 2008–2009 Israeli war

OriginalPaper

Psychometric evaluation of the CASP-19 quality of life scale in an older Irish cohort

Commentary

Pitfalls in subgroup analysis based on growth mixture models: a commentary on van Leeuwen et al. (2012)

OriginalPaper

Integrating health-related quality of life with sickness leave days for return-to-work assessment in traumatic limb injuries