Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment

Authors: Michel Konzelmann, Cyrille Burrus, Colette Gable, François Luthi, Jean Paysant

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Hand rehabilitation needs valid evaluation tools; the 400-point Hand Assessment (HA) is an exhaustive but not standardised tool. The aim of this study was to validate a standardised version of this test.

Methods

A modified version and a standardised prototype was made for this prospective validation study (four centres, three countries). Psychometric properties studied: reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater, standard error of measurement [SEM], minimum detectable change [MDC],internal consistency); content validity, construct validity with Jebsen Taylor hand function test, QuickDASH, MOS-SF 36 and pain; responsiveness, using an anchor-based approach (ROC curve with area under curve, mean response change) with calculation of MCID. For SEM, MDC and responsiveness, QuickDASH was used for comparison.

Results

One hundred and seventy-six patients with hand/wrist injuries were included between May 2013 and February 2015. One hundred and seventy were available for final analysis: 67% men; mean age 43.4 ± 13.2 years; both manual and office workers (46, 5% of each); 37% had a hand or wrist fracture.

Reliability: ICC intra-rater = 0.967 [0.938–0.982]; inter-rater = 0.868 [0.754–0.932]. Distribution-based approach: for 400-point HA/QuickDASH: SEM = 3.48/4.52, MDC = 9.065/12.53, internal consistency of 400-point HA: Cronbach α = 0.886.

Validity: Content validity was good according to COSMIN guidelines. Construct validity: correlation coefficient: Jebsen-Taylor hand function test = − 0.573 [− 0.666–0.464], QuickDASH = − 0.432 at T0 [− 0.545–0.303], − 0.551 at T3 [− 0.648–0.436]; MOS-SF 36 physical component = 0.395 [0.263–0.513]; no correlation with MOS-SF 36 mental component = 0.142 [− 0.009 + 0.286] and pain = − 0.166 [− 0.306 + 0.018].

Responsiveness: Anchor-based approach: AUC Δ400-point HA = 0.666 [0.583–0.749], AUC ΔQuickDASH = 0.556 [0.466–0.646]. MCID (optimal ROC curve cut-off): 6.07 for 400-point HA, − 2.27 for QuickDASH. MCID with mean response change + 12.034 ± 9.067 for 400-point HA and − 8.03 ± –9.7 for QuickDASH. The patient’s global impression of change was only correlated with the Δ400-point HA.

Conclusions

The 400-point HA standardised version has good psychometric properties. For responsiveness, we propose an MCID of at least 12.3/100. However, these results must be confirmed in other populations and pathologies.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered into ISCTRN registry (Number ISRCTN25874481) the 07/02/2019.

Available only for authorised users

Ruf O: Suva Abteilung Versicherungstechnik (2014) Unfallstatistik UVG 2008–2012. Suva, Luzern.

Stiens SA, Haselkorn JK, Peters DJ, Goldstein B. Rehabilitation intervention for patients with upper extremity dysfunction: challenges of outcome evaluation. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):590–601.PubMedCrossRef

Organization WH: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF: World Health Organization; 2001.

Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustun B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(4):212–8.PubMedCrossRef

Xiong T, Hartley S. Challenges in linking health-status outcome measures and clinical assessment tools to the ICF. Adv Physiotherapy. 2008;10(3):152–6.CrossRef

Schoneveld K, Wittink H, Takken T. Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. J Hand Ther. 2009;22(3):221–36.PubMedCrossRef

Dubert T. Outcome measurements in hand and upper limb surgery. Chir Main. 2014;33(4):235–46.PubMedCrossRef

Van De Ven-Stevens LA, Graff MJ, Selles RW, Schreuders TA, Van Der Linde H, Spauwen PH, Geurts AC. Instruments for assessment of impairments and activity limitations in patients with hand conditions: A European Delphi study. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(10):948–56.PubMedCrossRef

Kus S, Dereskewitz C, Coenen M, Rauch A, Rudolf KD. Consortium Lighthouse Project H: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: development of an assessment set to evaluate functioning based on the Brief ICF Core Set for Hand Conditions - ICF HandA. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2017;42(7):731–41.PubMedCrossRef

10.

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

11.

Badalamente M, Coffelt L, Elfar J, Gaston G, Hammert W, Huang J, Lattanza L, Macdermid J, Merrell G, Netscher D. Measurement scales in clinical research of the upper extremity, part 2: outcome measures in studies of the hand/wrist and shoulder/elbow. J Hand Surg. 2013;38(2):407–12.CrossRef

12.

Isernhagen SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil. 1992;2(3):157–68.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ng CL, Ho DD, Chow S. The Moberg pickup test: results of testing with a standard protocol. J Hand Ther. 1999;12(4):309–12.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Carroll D. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis. 1965;18(5):479–91.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Sears ED, Chung KC. Validity and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(1):30–7.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311–9.PubMed

17.

Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Bravo G, Dutil É. Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): normative data and correlates with sensorimotor parameters. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(12):1125–9.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Moseley AM, Yap MC. Interrater reliability of the TEMPA for the measurement of upper limb function in adults with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2003;18(6):526–31.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Nedelec B, Dion K, Correa JA, Desrosiers J. Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): normative data for young adults. J Hand Ther. 2011;24(1):31–43.PubMedCrossRef

20.

van Lankveld W, van't Pad BP, Bakker J, Terwindt S, Franssen M, van Kiel P. Sequential occupational dexterity assessment (SODA): a new test to measure hand disability. J Hand Ther. 1996;9(1):27–32.PubMedCrossRef

21.

van Lankveld WG, Graff MJ, van't Pad Bosch PJ. The short version of the sequential occupational dexterity assessment based on individual tasks' sensitivity to change. Arthritis Care Res. 1999;12(6):417–24.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Aaron DH, Jansen CWS. Development of the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT): construction, validity, reliability, and normative data. J Hand Ther. 2003;16(1):12–21.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Sartorio F, Bravini E, Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Plebani G, Foti C, Franchignoni F. The Functional Dexterity Test: Test–retest reliability analysis and up-to date reference norms. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(1):62–8.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Gable C, Chau N, Xénard J, André J. Accords inter-juges d'une mesure fonctionnelle analytique du membre supérieur. Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique. 1993;41(1):72–83.PubMed

25.

Luquet C, Chau N, Nadif M, Guillemin F, Gavillot C, Petry D, Moreau T, Bourgkard E, Hecquet B, André J. Unidimensionnalité d'une mesure fonctionnelle pour des malades ayant une lésion du membre supérieur. Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique. 1996;44(3):248–61.PubMed

26.

GABLE C, XENARD J, J-M ANDRE. Bilan 400 points. Journal d'ergothérapie. 1996;18(2):47–58.

27.

Gable C,Xenard J, Makiela E, Chau N. Evaluation focntionnelle de la main.Bilan 400 points et tests chiffrés. Ann Readaptation Med Phys. 1997;40:95–101.

28.

Greenseid DZ, McCormack RM. Functional hand testing: a profile evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1968;42(6):567–71.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Jacobson-Sollerman C, Sperling L. Grip function of the healthy hand in a standardized hand function test. A study of the Rancho Los Amigos test. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1977;9(3):123–9.PubMed

30.

Konzelmann M, Gable C, Angel S, Balandras S, Fortel Y, Gauzelin M-P, Gusse I, Monereau C, Coutant M-EM, Sanamane V. Quels sont les items de la Classification internationale du fonctionnement (CIF) couverts par le bilan 400 points? Consensus entre deux équipes de thérapeutes. Ann Physical Rehabil Med. 2012;55:e292.CrossRef

31.

Naranjo Olguín J, Escalona D’Angelo P, Solís Flores F. San Martín Peñailillo P: Pauta funcional de mano Bilan 400 points validada en población de 7 a 17 años de edad portadora de discapacidad neuro-músculo-esquelética. Rehabilitación. 2014;48(3):151–9.CrossRef

32.

Gable C, Kandel M, Moureau F, Beer L, Chau N, Paysant J. Étude de reproductibilité de la cotation du «Bilan 400 points», une mesure de capacité fonctionnelle de la main. Chir Main. 2012;31(2):76–82.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Angst F, Drerup S, Werle S, Herren DB, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Prediction of grip and key pinch strength in 978 healthy subjects. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11(1):94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J-B. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):2.PubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Fermanian J. Validation des échelles d'évaluation en médecine physique et de réadaptation: comment apprécier correctement leurs qualités psychométriques. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2005;48(6):281–7.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10.CrossRef

39.

de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice; 2009.

41.

Rudman D, Hannah S. An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function. J Hand Ther. 1998;11(4):266–77.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Fayad F, Lefevre-Colau M-M, Gautheron V, Macé Y, Fermanian J, Mayoux-Benhamou A, Roren A, Rannou F, Roby-Brami A, Revel M. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the French version of the questionnaire Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in shoulder disorders. Man Ther. 2009;14(2):206–12.PubMedCrossRef

43.

http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/.

44.

Ferreira PL. Development of the Portuguese version of MOS SF-36. Part I. cultural and linguistic adaptation. Acta Med Port. 2000;13(1–2):55–66.PubMed

45.

Severo M, Santos AC, Lopes C, Barros H. Reliability and validity in measuring physical and mental health construct of the Portuguese version of MOS SF-36. Acta Med Port. 2006;19(4):281–7.PubMed

46.

Leplege A, Mesbah M, Marquis P. Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of the French version of an international questionnaire measuring the quality of life: the MOS SF-36 (version 1.1). Revue d’epidemiologie et de sante publique. 1995;43(4):371–9.PubMed

47.

Decourcelle F, Decourcelle C, Rigaux P. Apport du Jebsen test dans l'évaluation du membre supérieur en neurologie centrale. J d’ergotherapie. 1996;18(2):64–71.

48.

Ferreiro KN,dos santos RL, Conforto AB. Psychometric properties of the portuguese version of the jebsen-taylor test for adults with mild hemiparesis. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010;14(5):377–81.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):160–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32–5.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Beaton D, Bombardier C, Katz J, Wright J. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(12):1204–17.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008–18.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Bravini E, Ferriero G. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(1):30–9.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Polson K, Reid D, McNair PJ, Larmer P. Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):404–7.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Smith-Forbes EV, Howell DM, Willoughby J, Pitts DG, Uhl TL. Specificity of the minimal clinically important difference of the quick disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand (QDASH) for distal upper extremity conditions. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(1):81–8.PubMedCrossRef

58.

MacDermid JC, Mulè M. Concurrent validity of the NK hand dexterity test. Physiother Res Int. 2001;6(2):83–93.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Chryssochou E, Hilfiker R, Deriaz O, Luthi F, Konzelmann M. La validité de construit convergente (VCC) du bilan 400 points est meilleure avec le sous-score fonction du questionnaire PRWE (patient rated wrist evaluation) version française (F) qu’avec le sore total. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;54:e64.CrossRef

60.

Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Smith P, Van Eerd D, Tang K, Inrig T, Hogg-Johnson S, Linton D, Couban R. Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2509–47.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–6.PubMedCrossRef

62.

de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment
Authors: Michel Konzelmann
Cyrille Burrus
Colette Gable
François Luthi
Jean Paysant
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03303-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated osteoarthritis care model: secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial

Diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify neuropathic pain in low back related leg pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Popliteal artery transection associated with a minimally displaced tibial plateau fracture: a case report and review of the literature

Systematic changes of the static upper body posture with a symmetric occlusion condition

Self-reported physical activity in people with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in Norway

Mid-term to long-term results of primary arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a retrospective study