Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire

Cross-sectional study. There is a lack of information on the measurement properties of patient-reported upper extremity instruments and their association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine and compare the measurement properties and construct validity of the Disabi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of hand therapy 2020-10, Vol.33 (4), p.571-579
Hauptverfasser: Uimonen, Mikko M., Hulkkonen, Sina M., Ryhänen, Jorma, Ponkilainen, Ville T., Häkkinen, Arja H., Karppinen, Jaro, Repo, Jussi P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 579
container_issue 4
container_start_page 571
container_title Journal of hand therapy
container_volume 33
creator Uimonen, Mikko M.
Hulkkonen, Sina M.
Ryhänen, Jorma
Ponkilainen, Ville T.
Häkkinen, Arja H.
Karppinen, Jaro
Repo, Jussi P.
description Cross-sectional study. There is a lack of information on the measurement properties of patient-reported upper extremity instruments and their association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine and compare the measurement properties and construct validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Instrument and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) using a heterogeneous sample of patients with hand and wrist problems. Two hundred fifty consecutive patients visiting a general orthopedic outpatient clinic due to various hand/wrist problems were invited to participate in the study. A total of 193 (77%) participants provided sufficient patient-reported outcome data and were included in the analysis. Participants completed the DASH, the MHQ, the EQ-5D-3L, and pain on a visual analog scale instruments. Grip and key pinch forces were measured. Scale targeting, relatedness of demographics, and construct validity of the DASH and the MHQ were assessed. Both the DASH and the MHQ had good targeting, but the DASH had wider coverage. The convergence between the DASH and the MHQ was high. The DASH was more closely related to HRQoL than the MHQ in terms of EQ-5D scores. The DASH instrument appeared to measure hand function and disability from a perspective of HRQoL superior to the MHQ among patients with heterogeneous hand and wrist complaints. The DASH performs well in measuring the HRQoL-related hand outcomes while the MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand. •Two hand specific outcome measure instruments, the DASH and the MHQ were compared.•Both instruments provided acceptable measurement properties.•The DASH associated closely with the HRQoL.•The MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jht.2019.03.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2284566452</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S089411301830365X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2284566452</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-bc5c46c12b49f4793488e84357f127a1b9add8c8413e10c1e99378bc7ae7fc803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EotvCA3BBkbhwaILHdhJHnFaF0kpFFQIkbpbjTIhXiVNsZ6W-DM-Ks9ty4MDFI__65p_R_IS8AloAherdrtgNsWAUmoLyglL5hGygFGVOqfjxlGyobEQOwOkJOQ1hRymUjNbPyQkHIYFzuSG_tyFgCBO6mM19ZmYXol9MzPZ6tJ2N96saB8wurXM2DNkefbCJetQ_2KBbO9po8aBt_XSefR3mZezQZ9p12dX6XB98D2PW79r52ZrB_tTuCNwu0cxT8viyYIhpgtPW4wvyrNdjwJcP9Yx8v_z47eIqv7n9dH2xvcmNYCLmrSmNqAywVjS9qBsupEQpeFn3wGoNbaO7ThopgCNQA9g0vJatqTXWvZGUn5G3R987P_9aF1CTDQbHUTucl6AYk6KsKlGyhL75B93Ni3dpO8VERZumYgwSBUfK-DkEj72683bS_l4BVWt4aqdSeGoNT1GuUnip5_WD89JO2P3teEwrAe-PAKZT7C16FYxFZ7BLpzJRdbP9j_0fXh6r4g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2460996221</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Uimonen, Mikko M. ; Hulkkonen, Sina M. ; Ryhänen, Jorma ; Ponkilainen, Ville T. ; Häkkinen, Arja H. ; Karppinen, Jaro ; Repo, Jussi P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Uimonen, Mikko M. ; Hulkkonen, Sina M. ; Ryhänen, Jorma ; Ponkilainen, Ville T. ; Häkkinen, Arja H. ; Karppinen, Jaro ; Repo, Jussi P.</creatorcontrib><description>Cross-sectional study. There is a lack of information on the measurement properties of patient-reported upper extremity instruments and their association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine and compare the measurement properties and construct validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Instrument and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) using a heterogeneous sample of patients with hand and wrist problems. Two hundred fifty consecutive patients visiting a general orthopedic outpatient clinic due to various hand/wrist problems were invited to participate in the study. A total of 193 (77%) participants provided sufficient patient-reported outcome data and were included in the analysis. Participants completed the DASH, the MHQ, the EQ-5D-3L, and pain on a visual analog scale instruments. Grip and key pinch forces were measured. Scale targeting, relatedness of demographics, and construct validity of the DASH and the MHQ were assessed. Both the DASH and the MHQ had good targeting, but the DASH had wider coverage. The convergence between the DASH and the MHQ was high. The DASH was more closely related to HRQoL than the MHQ in terms of EQ-5D scores. The DASH instrument appeared to measure hand function and disability from a perspective of HRQoL superior to the MHQ among patients with heterogeneous hand and wrist complaints. The DASH performs well in measuring the HRQoL-related hand outcomes while the MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand. •Two hand specific outcome measure instruments, the DASH and the MHQ were compared.•Both instruments provided acceptable measurement properties.•The DASH associated closely with the HRQoL.•The MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-1130</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-004X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2019.03.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31481338</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arm ; Demography ; Disabilities ; Disability ; Function ; Hand ; Hands ; Hospitals ; Measuring instruments ; Orthopedics ; Pain ; Patients ; Pinch force ; Principal components analysis ; PROM ; Quality of life ; Questionnaires ; Shoulder ; Upper extremity ; Upper limb ; Validation studies ; Validity ; Wrist</subject><ispartof>Journal of hand therapy, 2020-10, Vol.33 (4), p.571-579</ispartof><rights>2019 Hanley &amp; Belfus</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Hanley &amp; Belfus. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2019. Hanley &amp; Belfus</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-bc5c46c12b49f4793488e84357f127a1b9add8c8413e10c1e99378bc7ae7fc803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-bc5c46c12b49f4793488e84357f127a1b9add8c8413e10c1e99378bc7ae7fc803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2460996221?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976,64364,64366,64368,72218</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31481338$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Uimonen, Mikko M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulkkonen, Sina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryhänen, Jorma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponkilainen, Ville T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Häkkinen, Arja H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karppinen, Jaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repo, Jussi P.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire</title><title>Journal of hand therapy</title><addtitle>J Hand Ther</addtitle><description>Cross-sectional study. There is a lack of information on the measurement properties of patient-reported upper extremity instruments and their association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine and compare the measurement properties and construct validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Instrument and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) using a heterogeneous sample of patients with hand and wrist problems. Two hundred fifty consecutive patients visiting a general orthopedic outpatient clinic due to various hand/wrist problems were invited to participate in the study. A total of 193 (77%) participants provided sufficient patient-reported outcome data and were included in the analysis. Participants completed the DASH, the MHQ, the EQ-5D-3L, and pain on a visual analog scale instruments. Grip and key pinch forces were measured. Scale targeting, relatedness of demographics, and construct validity of the DASH and the MHQ were assessed. Both the DASH and the MHQ had good targeting, but the DASH had wider coverage. The convergence between the DASH and the MHQ was high. The DASH was more closely related to HRQoL than the MHQ in terms of EQ-5D scores. The DASH instrument appeared to measure hand function and disability from a perspective of HRQoL superior to the MHQ among patients with heterogeneous hand and wrist complaints. The DASH performs well in measuring the HRQoL-related hand outcomes while the MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand. •Two hand specific outcome measure instruments, the DASH and the MHQ were compared.•Both instruments provided acceptable measurement properties.•The DASH associated closely with the HRQoL.•The MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand.</description><subject>Arm</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Disabilities</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Function</subject><subject>Hand</subject><subject>Hands</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pinch force</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>PROM</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Shoulder</subject><subject>Upper extremity</subject><subject>Upper limb</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Wrist</subject><issn>0894-1130</issn><issn>1545-004X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EotvCA3BBkbhwaILHdhJHnFaF0kpFFQIkbpbjTIhXiVNsZ6W-DM-Ks9ty4MDFI__65p_R_IS8AloAherdrtgNsWAUmoLyglL5hGygFGVOqfjxlGyobEQOwOkJOQ1hRymUjNbPyQkHIYFzuSG_tyFgCBO6mM19ZmYXol9MzPZ6tJ2N96saB8wurXM2DNkefbCJetQ_2KBbO9po8aBt_XSefR3mZezQZ9p12dX6XB98D2PW79r52ZrB_tTuCNwu0cxT8viyYIhpgtPW4wvyrNdjwJcP9Yx8v_z47eIqv7n9dH2xvcmNYCLmrSmNqAywVjS9qBsupEQpeFn3wGoNbaO7ThopgCNQA9g0vJatqTXWvZGUn5G3R987P_9aF1CTDQbHUTucl6AYk6KsKlGyhL75B93Ni3dpO8VERZumYgwSBUfK-DkEj72683bS_l4BVWt4aqdSeGoNT1GuUnip5_WD89JO2P3teEwrAe-PAKZT7C16FYxFZ7BLpzJRdbP9j_0fXh6r4g</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Uimonen, Mikko M.</creator><creator>Hulkkonen, Sina M.</creator><creator>Ryhänen, Jorma</creator><creator>Ponkilainen, Ville T.</creator><creator>Häkkinen, Arja H.</creator><creator>Karppinen, Jaro</creator><creator>Repo, Jussi P.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire</title><author>Uimonen, Mikko M. ; Hulkkonen, Sina M. ; Ryhänen, Jorma ; Ponkilainen, Ville T. ; Häkkinen, Arja H. ; Karppinen, Jaro ; Repo, Jussi P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-bc5c46c12b49f4793488e84357f127a1b9add8c8413e10c1e99378bc7ae7fc803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Arm</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Disabilities</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Function</topic><topic>Hand</topic><topic>Hands</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pinch force</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>PROM</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Shoulder</topic><topic>Upper extremity</topic><topic>Upper limb</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Wrist</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Uimonen, Mikko M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulkkonen, Sina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryhänen, Jorma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponkilainen, Ville T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Häkkinen, Arja H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karppinen, Jaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repo, Jussi P.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of hand therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Uimonen, Mikko M.</au><au>Hulkkonen, Sina M.</au><au>Ryhänen, Jorma</au><au>Ponkilainen, Ville T.</au><au>Häkkinen, Arja H.</au><au>Karppinen, Jaro</au><au>Repo, Jussi P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire</atitle><jtitle>Journal of hand therapy</jtitle><addtitle>J Hand Ther</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>571</spage><epage>579</epage><pages>571-579</pages><issn>0894-1130</issn><eissn>1545-004X</eissn><abstract>Cross-sectional study. There is a lack of information on the measurement properties of patient-reported upper extremity instruments and their association to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine and compare the measurement properties and construct validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Instrument and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) using a heterogeneous sample of patients with hand and wrist problems. Two hundred fifty consecutive patients visiting a general orthopedic outpatient clinic due to various hand/wrist problems were invited to participate in the study. A total of 193 (77%) participants provided sufficient patient-reported outcome data and were included in the analysis. Participants completed the DASH, the MHQ, the EQ-5D-3L, and pain on a visual analog scale instruments. Grip and key pinch forces were measured. Scale targeting, relatedness of demographics, and construct validity of the DASH and the MHQ were assessed. Both the DASH and the MHQ had good targeting, but the DASH had wider coverage. The convergence between the DASH and the MHQ was high. The DASH was more closely related to HRQoL than the MHQ in terms of EQ-5D scores. The DASH instrument appeared to measure hand function and disability from a perspective of HRQoL superior to the MHQ among patients with heterogeneous hand and wrist complaints. The DASH performs well in measuring the HRQoL-related hand outcomes while the MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand. •Two hand specific outcome measure instruments, the DASH and the MHQ were compared.•Both instruments provided acceptable measurement properties.•The DASH associated closely with the HRQoL.•The MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31481338</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jht.2019.03.008</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0894-1130
ispartof Journal of hand therapy, 2020-10, Vol.33 (4), p.571-579
issn 0894-1130
1545-004X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2284566452
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Arm
Demography
Disabilities
Disability
Function
Hand
Hands
Hospitals
Measuring instruments
Orthopedics
Pain
Patients
Pinch force
Principal components analysis
PROM
Quality of life
Questionnaires
Shoulder
Upper extremity
Upper limb
Validation studies
Validity
Wrist
title Assessment of construct validity of the Finnish versions of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Instrument and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T23%3A55%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20construct%20validity%20of%20the%20Finnish%20versions%20of%20the%20Disabilities%20of%20Arm,%20Shoulder%20and%20Hand%20Instrument%20and%20the%20Michigan%20Hand%20Outcomes%20Questionnaire&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20hand%20therapy&rft.au=Uimonen,%20Mikko%20M.&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=571&rft.epage=579&rft.pages=571-579&rft.issn=0894-1130&rft.eissn=1545-004X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jht.2019.03.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2284566452%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2460996221&rft_id=info:pmid/31481338&rft_els_id=S089411301830365X&rfr_iscdi=true