Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 473, Issue 1, pp 311–317 | Cite as

The PROMIS Physical Function Correlates With the QuickDASH in Patients With Upper Extremity Illness

  • Celeste L. Overbeek
  • Sjoerd P. F. T. Nota
  • Prakash Jayakumar
  • Michiel G. Hageman
  • David Ring
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

To assess disability more efficiently with less burden on the patient, the National Institutes of Health has developed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function—an instrument based on item response theory and using computer adaptive testing (CAT). Initially, upper and lower extremity disabilities were not separated and we were curious if the PROMIS Physical Function CAT could measure upper extremity disability and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH).

Questions/purposes

We aimed to find correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaires in patients with upper extremity illness. Secondarily, we addressed whether the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH correlate with the PROMIS Depression CAT and PROMIS Pain Interference CAT instruments. Finally, we assessed factors associated with QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function in multivariable analysis.

Methods

A cohort of 93 outpatients with upper extremity illnesses completed the QuickDASH and three PROMIS CAT questionnaires: Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression. Pain intensity was measured with an 11-point ordinal measure (0–10 numeric rating scale). Correlation between PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH was assessed. Factors that correlated with the PROMIS Physical Function and QuickDASH were assessed in multivariable regression analysis after initial bivariate analysis.

Results

There was a moderate correlation between the PROMIS Physical Function and the QuickDASH questionnaire (r = −0.55, p < 0.001). Greater disability as measured with the PROMIS and QuickDASH correlated most strongly with PROMIS Depression (r = −0.35, p < 0.001 and r = 0.34, p < 0.001 respectively) and Pain Interference (r = −0.51, p < 0.001 and r = 0.74, p < 0.001 respectively). The factors accounting for the variability in PROMIS scores are comparable to those for the QuickDASH except that the PROMIS Physical Function is influenced by other pain conditions while the QuickDASH is not.

Conclusions

The PROMIS Physical Function instrument may be used as an upper extremity disability measure, as it correlates with the QuickDASH questionnaire, and both instruments are influenced most strongly by the degree to which pain interferes with achieving goals.

Level of Evidence

Level III, diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Item Response Theory Numeric Rating Scale Pain Interference Worker Compensation Patient Report Outcome Measurement Information System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Amtmann D, Cook KF, Jensen MP, Chen WH, Choi S, Revicki D, Cella D, Rothrock N, Keefe F, Callahan L, Lai JS. Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain. 2010;150:173−182.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angst F, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Flury M, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. 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. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1043−1051.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN; Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038−1046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaton DE, Richards RR. Measuring function of the shoulder: a cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:882−890.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371−383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:870−877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, Lingala B, Gandek B, Rose M, Ware JE Jr. (2009) Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther. 11:191.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budd HR, Larson D, Chojnowski A, Shepstone L. The QuickDASH score: a patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren’s surgery. J Hand Ther. 2011;24:15−20; quiz 21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cella D, Chang CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care. 2000;38(9 suppl);1166−1172.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S, Cook K, Devellis R, DeWalt D, Fries JF, Gershon R, Hahn EA, Lai JS, Pilkonis P, Revicki D, Rose M, Weinfurt K, Hays R (2010) PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005−2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 63:1179−1194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook KF, O’Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag? Health Serv Res. 2005;40:1694−1711.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan ZJ, Smith CK, Silverstein BA. Responsiveness of the QuickDASH and SF-12 in workers with neck or upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: one-year follow-up. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21:234−243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration. J Rheumatol. 2011;38: 175917−64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 suppl 39):S53−57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fries JF, Cella D, Rose M, Krishnan E, Bruce B. Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2061−2066.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fries JF, Krishnan E, Rose M, Lingala B, Bruce B. Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13:R147.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibbons LE, Feldman BJ, Crane HM, Mugavero M, Willig JH, Patrick D, Schumacher J, Saag M, Kitahata MM, Crane PK. Migrating from a legacy fixed-format measure to CAT administration: calibrating the PHQ-9 to the PROMIS depression measures. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1349−1357.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:629−638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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;29:602−608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, Saltzman CL. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:947−953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF, Saltzman CL, Kubiak EN. Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS Physical Function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Dec 27. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Fisher LD. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain. 1999;83:157−162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:103−105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Moed R. Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63:1246−1256.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kocalevent RD, Rose M, Becker J, Walter OB, Fliege H, Bjorner JB, Kleiber D, Klapp BF. An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:278−287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB; Kinemax Outcomes Group.Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1856−1864.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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;35:2150−2156.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:920−926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Niekel MC, Lindenhovius AL, Watson JB, Vranceanu AM, Ring D. Correlation of DASH and QuickDASH with measures of psychological distress. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34:1499−1505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Reise SP, Stover AM, Riley WT, Cella D; PROMIS Cooperative Group. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(R)): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment. 2011;18:263−283.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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;15:404−407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    PROMIS Health Organization, PROMIS Cooperative Group. PROMIS® Instrument Development and Validation Scientific Standards Version 2.0 (revised May 2013). Available at: http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2014.
  34. 34.
    Ring D, Kadzielski J, Fabian L, Zurakowski D, Malhotra LR, Jupiter JB. Self-reported upper extremity health status correlates with depression. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1983−1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17−33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sahlqvist S, Song Y, Bull F, Adams E, Preston J, Ogilvie D; iConnect consortium. Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:62.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sarda J Jr, Nicholas MK, Asgari A, Pimenta CA. The contribution of self-efficacy and depression to disability and work status in chronic pain patients: a comparison between Australian and Brazilian samples. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:189−195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG 3rd, McGillivary GR. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg Am. 2002;27:537−541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vranceanu AM, Safren S, Zhao M, Cowan J, Ring D. Disability and psychologic distress in patients with nonspecific and specific arm pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2820−2826.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:227−236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wong JY, Fung BK, Chu MM, Chan RK. The use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire in rehabilitation after acute traumatic hand injuries. J Hand Ther. 2007;20:49−55; quiz 56.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu A, Edgar DW, Wood FM. The QuickDASH is an appropriate tool for measuring the quality of recovery after upper limb burn injury. Burns. 2007;33:843−849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celeste L. Overbeek
    • 1
  • Sjoerd P. F. T. Nota
    • 1
  • Prakash Jayakumar
    • 1
  • Michiel G. Hageman
    • 1
  • David Ring
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The Hand and Upper Extremity ServiceMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Orthopaedic AssociatesYawkey Center for Outpatient CareBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations