This study investigated aspects of the validity and reliability of the 30-item Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand patient-reported outcome measure (DASH) and its relationship with the shorter 11-item QuickDASH in patients with Dupuytren’s disease.
Seven hundred and fifty-nine DASH questionnaires were studied, covering pre- and postoperative patients undergoing different treatments for Dupuytren’s disease. Items related to pain rose early after treatment before returning to baseline, suggesting that studying pain is relevant during postoperative recovery. Across all 759 sets of responses, the QuickDASH agreed closely with the DASH. In exploratory factor analysis, the DASH was not unidimensional, questioning the validity of the DASH summary score in Dupuytren’s disease.
Further validation of existing PROMs for use in Dupuytren’s disease is needed. These data suggest that pain is a relevant symptom to study during postoperative recovery following treatment for Dupuytren’s disease.
AkhavaniMAMcMurtrieAWebbMMuirL. A review of the classification of Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 155–65.
2.
BallCPrattALNanchahalJ. Optimal functional outcome measures for assessing treatment for Dupuytren’s disease: A systematic review and recommendations for future practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013, 14: 131.
3.
BeatonDEWrightJGKatzJN. Development of the QuickDASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87: 1038–46.
4.
BeaudreuilJAllardAZerkakD. Unite Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: Development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren’s disease-specific disability. Arthrit Care Res. 2011, 63: 1448–55.
5.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307–10.
6.
BlandJMAltmanDG. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990, 20: 337–40.
7.
BuddHRLarsonDChojnowskiAShepstoneL. The QuickDASH score: A patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren’s surgery. J Hand Ther. 2011, 24: 15–20.
8.
CattellRB. The scree test for the number of factors. Mutlivar Behav Res. 1966, 1: 245–76.
9.
ChungKCPillsburyMSWaltersMRHaywardRA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998, 23: 575–87.
DiasJJRajanRAThompsonJR. Which questionnaire is best? The reliability, validity and ease of use of the Patient Evaluation Measure, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and the Michigan Hand Outcome Measure. J Hand Surg Eur. 2008, 33: 9–17.
14.
EngstrandCBorenLLiedbergGM. Evaluation of activity limitation and digital extension in Dupuytren’s contracture three months after fasciectomy and hand therapy interventions. J Hand Ther. 2009, 22: 21–6.
15.
FergusonECoxT. Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide. Int J Select Assess. 1993, 1: 84–94.
16.
FloydFJWidamanKF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assessment. 1995, 7: 286–99.
17.
ForgetNJJerosch-HeroldCShepstoneLHigginsJ. Psychometric evaluation of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) with Dupuytren’s contracture: Validity evidence using Rasch modeling. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014, 15: 361.
18.
FranchignoniFGiordanoASartorioFVercelliSPascarielloBFerrieroG. Suggestions for refinement of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH): A factor analysis and Rasch validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010, 91: 1370–7.
19.
GummessonCWardMMAtroshiI. 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.
20.
HerdmanMGudexCLloydA. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011, 20: 1727–36.
21.
HornJL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965, 30: 179–85.
22.
HuestonJT. Principles of management. In: HuestonJT (Ed.) Dupuytren’s contracture. London, E & S Livingstone, 1963: 76–94.
23.
Jerosch-HeroldCShepstoneLChojnowskiALarsonD. Severity of contracture and self-reported disability in patients with Dupuytren’s contracture referred for surgery. J Hand Ther. 2011, 24: 6–10.
24.
KaiserHF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974, 39: 31–6.
25.
KennedyCBeatonDSolwaySMcConnellSBombardierC. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual, 3rd Edn.Toronto, Institute for Work and Health, 2011.
26.
MaceyACBurkeFDAbbottK. Outcomes of hand surgery. British Society for Surgery of the Hand. J Hand Surg Br. 1995, 20: 841–55.
27.
MohanAVadherJIsmailHWarwickD. The Southampton Dupuytren’s Scoring Scheme. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014, 48: 28–33.
28.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBKnolDL. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 22.
NiekelMCLindenhoviusALWatsonJBVranceanuAMRingD. Correlation of DASH and QuickDASH with measures of psychological distress. J Hand Surg Am. 2009, 34: 1499–505.
31.
NormanG. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010, 15: 625–32.
32.
PackhamT. Clinical commentary in response to: Severity of contracture and self-reported disability in patients with Dupuytren’s contracture referred for surgery. J Hand Ther. 2011, 24: 12–4.
33.
PallantJ. Manipulating the data. In: SPSS Survival Manual, 4th Edn.Maidenhead, Open University Press, 2010: 74–84.
34.
PatilVHSinghSNMishraSDonovanTD. Parallel Analysis Engine to Aid Determining Number of Factors to Retain [Computer Software]. 2007.http://smishra.faculty.ku.edu/parallelengine.htm (2ndAugust2014).
35.
PrattALByrneG. The lived experience of Dupuytren’s disease of the hand. J Clin Nurs. 2009, 18: 1793–802.
36.
RodriguesJNZhangWScammellBEDavisTR. Dynamism in Dupuytren’s contractures. J Hand Surg Eur. 2014a, 40: 166–70.
37.
RodriguesJNZhangWScammellBEDavisTR. What patients want from the treatment of Dupuytren’s disease – is the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale relevant?J Hand Surg Eur. 2014b, 40: 150–4.
38.
SchuckP. Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used?Qual Life Res. 2004, 13: 571–86.
39.
TesioL. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med. 2003, 35: 105–15.
40.
TrickettRWSavageRLoganAJ. Angular correction related to excision of specific cords in fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Eur. 2014, 39: 472–6.
41.
VerheydenJR. Early outcomes of a sequential series of 144 patients with Dupuytren’s contracture treated by collagenase injection using an increased dose, multi-cord technique. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 133–40.
42.
von CampeAMendeKOmarenHMeuli-SimmenC. Painful nodules and cords in Dupuytren disease. J Hand Surg Am. 2012, 37: 1313–8.
43.
ZylukAJagielskiW. The effect of the severity of the Dupuytren’s contracture on the function of the hand before and after surgery. J Hand Surg Br. 2007, 32: 326–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
