Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess and compare content, validity, and specificity of the QuickDASH (Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire) as compared to the full-length DASH and other instruments to give a recommendation for its use depending on a specific clinical situation.

Methods

Data of three large cohorts of patients with shoulder (n = 138), elbow (n = 79), and carpo-metacarpal I (n = 103) arthroplasties were analyzed. The item content of both instruments was compared within the subdomains function and symptoms. Scores and correlations to other instruments were compared in all strata to assess construct convergence. Specificity was quantified and compared using receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC) and effect sizes (in shoulder only).

Results

The QuickDASH underestimates symptoms (e.g., 71.1 vs. DASH 66.1 in elbow, 100 = no symptoms, P < 0.001) but overestimates disability (e.g., 72.8 vs. DASH 78.5 in wrist, 100 = full function, P < 0.001). It does not measure the same content as the DASH although the total score levels of both instruments are similar. Furthermore, the QuickDASH is less specific than the DASH in the subdomains, especially in symptoms: for example, area under ROC 0.65 vs. DASH 0.68 in elbow (P = 0.015); effect size in shoulder 1.42 vs. DASH 1.65 (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The short QuickDASH can be recommended for a summary assessment of arm symptoms and function based on the total score in the daily clinical rush. For differentiated assessment of symptoms and function, e.g. for clinical studies, the full-length DASH provides more specific and sophisticated results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McConnell, S., Beaton, D. E., & Bombardier, C. (1999). The DASH outcome measure: A user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Offenbaecher, M., Ewert, T., Sangha, O., & Stucki, G. (2002). Validation of a German version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH-G). Journal of Rheumatology, 29, 401–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hudack, P., Amadio, P. C., Bombardier, C., & The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 602–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowrick, A. S., Gabbe, B. J., Williamson, O. D., & Cameron, P. A. (2005). Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: A review. Injury, 36(4), 468–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., & Tarasuk, V. (2001). Measuring the whole or parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14, 128–146.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beaton, D. E., & Richards, R. R. (1996). Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (America), 78A, 882–890.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beaton, D. E., & Richards, R. R. (1998). Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 7, 565–572.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bot, S. D. M., Terwee, C. B., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2004). Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: A review of the literature. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63, 335–341.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Angst, F., Pap, G., Mannion, A. F., Herren, D. B., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., et al. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty. Usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measurement. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51(5), 819–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Doornberg, J. N., Ring, D., Fabian, L. M., Malhotra, L., Zurakowski, D., & Jupiter, J. B. (2005). Pain dominates measurement of elbow function and health status. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87A(8), 1725–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Angst, F., John, M., Mannion, A. F., Herren, D. B., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., et al. (2005). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(1), 73–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. MacDermid, J. C., Richards, R. S., Donner, A., Bellamy, N., & Roth, J. H. (2000). Responsiveness of the short form 36, disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire, patient rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measures evaluating recovery after distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery, 25A, 330–340.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Angst, F., John, M., Goldhahn, J., Herren, D. B., Pap, G., Aeschlimann, A., et al. (2005). Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after resection interposition arthroplasty of the thumb saddle joint. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(2), 205–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., & Simmen, B. R. (2008). Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(3), 391–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Beaton, D. E., Wright, J. G., Katz, J. N., & the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. (2005). Development of QuickDASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 87-A(5), 1038–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gummesson, C., Ward, M. M., & Atroshi, I. (2006). The shortened disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): Validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Muculoskel Dis, 7, 44. URL: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/7/44.

  17. Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide (2nd ed.). Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualityMetric Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2004). SF-36 physical and mental summary scales: A manual for users of version 1 (2nd ed.). Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualityMetric Incorporated. (5th printing).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bullinger, M., & Kirchberger, I. (1998). SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Roach, K. E., Budiman-Mak, E., Songsiridej, N., & Lertrantanakul, Y. (1991). Development of a shoulder and pain disability index. Arthritis Care & Research, 4, 143–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Pap, G., Mannion, A. F., Roach, K. E., Siebertz, D., et al. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford), 46(1), 87–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. MacDermid, J. C. (2001). Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: Issues in instrument development and evaluation. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14(2), 105–114.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. John, M., Angst, F., Pap, G., Junge, A., & Mannion, A. F. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the patient related elbow evaluation (PREE) for German speaking patients. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 25(2), 195–205.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. MacDermid, J. C., Turgeon, T., Richards, R. S., Beadle, M., & Roth, J. H. (1998). Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: A reliable an valid measurement tool. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 12(8), 577–586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hemelaers, L., Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., MacDermid, J. C., & Wood-Dauphinée, S. (2008). Reliability and validity of the German version of the patient related wrist evaluation form (PRWE) in patients with acute distal radius fracture. Journal of Elbow Hand Therapy, 21(4), 366–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosner, B. (2000). Different significant tests. In B. Rosner (Ed.), Fundamentals of biostatistics (5th ed.). California: Duxbury (Thomson learning). pages 275,343,459.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wyrwich, K. W., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2000). Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(1), 39–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Homogeneity of the items. In D. L. Streiner & G. R. Norman (Eds.), Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed., pp. 68–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sachs, L. (1999). Significance tests of two correlation coefficients. In L. Sachs (Ed.), Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden. (Applied statistics. Application of statistical methods.) (9th ed., pp. 543–544). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Receiver operating characteristic curves, responsiveness. In D. L. Streiner & G. R. Norman (Eds.), Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed., pp. 119–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 198–199,209.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and the use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bessette, L., Sangha, O., Kuntz, K. M., Keller, R. B., Lwe, R. A., Fossle, A. H., et al. (1998). Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Medical Care, 36, 491–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(Suppl. 3), 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Angst, F., Aeschlimann, A., Michel, B. A., & Stucki, G. (2002). Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Journal of Rheumatology, 29(1), 131–138.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abrahamson, J. H., & Abrahamson, Z. H. (2001). Measures of strength. In J. H. Abrahamson & Z. H. Abrahamson (Eds.), Making sense of data. A self-instruction manual on the interpretation of epidemiologic data (3rd ed., pp. 200–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Upper Extremity and Hand Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Felix Angst, Jörg Goldhahn, Susann Drerup, Matthias Flury, Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer & Beat R. Simmen

  2. Rehaclinic Zurzach, Quellenstrasse, 5330, Bad Zurzach, Switzerland

    Felix Angst

  3. Schiedhaldenstrasse 1, 8700, Küsnacht, Switzerland

    Felix Angst

Authors
  1. Felix Angst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Goldhahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susann Drerup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Flury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Beat R. Simmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Angst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S. et al. 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 18, 1043–1051 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9529-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9529-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation