Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (Brief MHQ) is one of the most reliable and sensitive patient-reported outcome measures for hand and wrist disorders worldwide. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire based on standard guidelines.
Methods:
One hundred two patients with various hand and wrist disorders filled the Persian version of Brief MHQ along with the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. Seventy-eight participants returned to complete the Persian Brief MHQ for the second time after 4 days.
Results:
The analysis showed excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.89 to 0.91. The Persian Brief MHQ has an excellent test-retest reliability with a 0.94 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The correlation coefficient of -0.74 between Brief MHQ and the QuickDASH showed a strong correlation and confirmed its validity.
Conclusion:
The Persian version of the Brief MHQ is a reliable and valid tool to apply to Persian individuals with hand and wrist disorders.
WaljeeJFKimHMBurnsPB, et al. Development of a brief, 12-item version of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):208-220. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318218fc51.
2.
RohYHYangBKNohJH, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1497-1503. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.06.006.
3.
NelsonECEftimovskaELindC, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015;350:g7818. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7818.
4.
HudakPLAmadioPCBombardierC.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):602-608. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.
5.
WareJEJr.SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130-3139. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
6.
ChungKCPillsburyMSWaltersMR, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(4):575-587. doi:10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7.
7.
BeatonDEWrightJGKatzJN, et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):1038-1046. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02060.
8.
WareJJrKosinskiMKellerSD.A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233. doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
9.
HalpernSDAschDA.Commentary: improving response rates to mailed surveys—what do we learn from randomized controlled trials?Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(4):637-638. doi:10.1093/ije/dyg184.
10.
JepsonCAschDAHersheyJC, et al. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):103-105. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.004.
11.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminF, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
12.
OksuzCAkelBSOskayD, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability process of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in a Turkish population. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(3):486-492. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.11.016.
13.
HulkkonenSRepoJPHakkinenA, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Finnish version of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Scand J Surg. 2020;109(2):159-165. doi:10.1177/1457496918818981.
14.
EbrahimzadehMHBirjandinejadAKachooeiAR. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire among Persian population. Hand Surg. 2015;20(1):25-31. doi:10.1142/S0218810415500033.
15.
MarksM. Which patient-reported outcomes shall we use in hand surgery?J Hand Surg Eur. 2020;45(1):5-11. doi:10.1177/1753193419882875.
16.
KachooeiAREbrahimzadehMHErfani-SayyarR, et al. Short form-McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2): a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study of the Persian Version in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015;3(1):45-50.
17.
EbrahimzadehMHVahediEBaradaranA, et al. Psychometric properties of the Persian Version of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) Questionnaire. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016;4(4):387-392.
18.
EbrahimzadehMHKachooeiARVahediE, et al. Validity and cross-cultural adaptation of the Persian version of the Oxford Elbow Score. Int J Rheumatol. 2014;2014:381237. doi:10.1155/2014/381237.
19.
BaradaranAEbrahimzadehMHBirjandinejadA, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire in Persian population with low back pain. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(2):215-219. doi:10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.215.
20.
MousavianAEbrahimzadehMHBirjandinejadA, et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) into Persian language. Foot (Edinb). 2015;25(4):224-227. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2015.07.004.
21.
FarzadMLuZMacDermidJC, et al. Measurement properties of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire: Rasch analysis of responses from a traumatic hand injury population [published online ahead of print March 8, 2021]. Disabil Rehabil. 2021. doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1894246.
22.
EbrahimzadehMHMoradiAVahediE, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian Version of Shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (Quick-DASH). Int J Prev Med. 2015;6:59. doi:10.4103/2008-7802.160336.
23.
BijurPESilverWGallagherEJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153-1157. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.
24.
TaberKS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education. 2018;48(6):1273-1296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
25.
GeorgeDMalleryP. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon;2003.
26.
Koch GG. Intraclass correlation. In: KotzSJohnsonNL, eds. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 4th ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983:212–217.
27.
SmithEVJr.Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspective. J Appl Meas. 2001;2(3):281-311.
28.
MukakaMM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69-71.
29.
TavakolMDennickR. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
30.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
