Elsevier

Journal of Hand Therapy

Volume 33, Issue 4, October–December 2020, Pages 571-579
Journal of Hand Therapy

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.03.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • 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

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Introduction

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).

Purpose of the Study

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusion

The DASH performs well in measuring the HRQoL-related hand outcomes while the MHQ might be more specific for the affected hand.

Introduction

Increased interest in the outcomes of medical treatment has accelerated the development and use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments as a part of clinical outcome assessment.1, 2, 3 Extensive research and validation of such instruments have shown them to be useful in evaluating and comparing treatment outcomes.4 However, the applicability of different PRO instruments may vary in diverse study samples.2 To more accurately select a proper instrument for the population under examination,5 it is beneficial to understand the measurement properties of different PRO instruments in head-to-head comparison. A systematic review of van de Ven-Stevens et al.6 reviewed the clinimetric properties of 23 instruments for assessing hand function after hand injury, including 5 PRO instruments. There were vital shortages in the reported properties of all the surveyed PRO instruments. This finding refers to insufficient understanding of the key features of these hand-specific measures.

The Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) instrument7 and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ)8 are widely adopted PRO instruments for evaluating the performance and disability of upper limbs or hands.5 The clinimetric properties of the DASH have been investigated using classical test theory9 and the Rasch measurement theory,10, 11, 12 and several reports have assessed the validity of the MHQ among hand patients.8, 13, 14, 15, 16 A study by Dias et al17 compared 3 upper extremity–specific PRO instruments, the Patient Evaluation Measure, DASH, and MHQ. It found the DASH and MHQ to be valid and reliable for a sample of patients with various wrist or finger complaints, although there were shortages in construct validity of all PRO instruments measured by correlation testing between the instruments' scores and hand symptom severity.17 Nonetheless, thus far, there has been a lack of high-quality comparison of these 2 PRO instruments with a perspective of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. Comparison of the association of the DASH and MHQ to HRQoL provides valuable information for researchers and clinicians dealing with hand and wrist problems. The results could potentially guide us to choose the right instrument for assessing the function or disability of patients.

The aim of this study was to measure and compare the scale targeting and construct validity of the Finnish versions of the DASH and MHQ and their association to HRQoL using a heterogeneous sample of patients with hand and wrist problems to better understand the clinimetrics of these 2 widely used PRO instruments.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

In 2017, 250 consecutive patients with hand and wrist problems treated at the general orthopedic outpatient clinic in Länsi-Pohja Central Hospital in Kemi, Finland, were invited in person to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria were age of 18 years or above, complete understanding of spoken and written Finnish, lack of cognitive disabilities, and the ability to give signed informed consent to participate in the study. Overall, 230 invited patients were willing to participate in the

Statistical methods

The scores of all the instruments were converted to scale from 0 to 100. To obtain a parallel effect direction, the scores of the EQ-5D-3L index, EQ-VAS, and MHQ were inverted by subtracting the score from 100. After conversion, lower scores indicated better outcomes in all scales, and higher scores indicated worse outcomes. Clinical, demographic, and questionnaire data are presented as means with standard deviations, 95% CI, or counts with percentages. Scale targeting was assessed by

Results

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic and clinical data of the participants. We observed no floor or ceiling effects in either PRO instrument, although 6 (3.1%) participants scored the minimum score in the DASH. Figure 1 shows the distributions of the DASH and MHQ scores. The distribution of the MHQ scores followed normal distribution, whereas the DASH score distribution was skewed toward lower disability. However, the DASH scores covered the scale more comprehensively than the MHQ scores. In

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that both the DASH and MHQ instruments' scores strongly correlated with each other, as well as with the generic HRQoL instrument scores. Both instruments had comparable measurement properties when the outcomes of various hand complaints were evaluated (Table 3). However, in terms of its strong relationship with HRQoL, the DASH instrument seemed to have more suitable measurement properties for the study sample than the MHQ when evaluating HRQoL-related outcomes

Conclusion

The scores of the DASH and MHQ were highly correlated. The DASH scores had a stronger relationship with the HRQoL outcomes. Thus, the DASH instrument appeared to be superior to the MHQ in evaluating the outcomes from a perspective of HRQoL among patients with heterogeneous hand and wrist complaints. On the other hand, the MHQ might be a more specific instrument when measuring performance of the affected hand.

Quiz: # 722

Record your answers on the Return Answer Form found on the tear-out coupon at the back of this issue or to complete online and use a credit card, go to JHTReadforCredit.com. There is only one best answer for each question.

  • # 1.

    Good targeting was noted for the

    • a.

      DASH

    • b.

      MHQ

    • c.

      both a and b above

    • d.

      neither a nor b above

  • # 2.

    Overall scores were

    • a.

      higher for females

    • b.

      higher for males

    • c.

      equal for male and female

    • d.

      inconclusive

  • # 3.

    Participants completed the

    • a.

      MHQ

    • b.

      EQ-5D-3L

    • c.

      DASH

    • d.

      all of the above

  • # 4.

    Comparing the MHQ and the DASH there was

References (38)

  • R.G. Marx et al.

    Clinimetric and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1999)
  • R. Brooks et al.

    EuroQol: the current state of play

    Health Policy

    (1996)
  • Y.-S. Horng et al.

    Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire in patients with hand injury

    J Hand Surg

    (2010)
  • R.E. Gay et al.

    Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release

    J Hand Surg

    (2003)
  • G. Guyatt et al.

    Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine

    JAMA

    (1992)
  • C.A. McHorney et al.

    Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

    Qual Life Res

    (1995)
  • A. Garratt et al.

    Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures

    BMJ

    (2002)
  • E.C. Nelson et al.

    Patient reported outcome measures in practice

    BMJ

    (2015)
  • P.L. Hudak et al.

    Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head)

    Am J Ind Med

    (1996)
  • Cited by (5)

    • A systematic review of the measurement properties of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ)

      2022, Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      We first reviewed the articles by title and Abstract, then performed a second screening based on the full texts. The 55 remaining articles were included in the final study [7,8,14–66]. The selection process is reported in the flowchart (Fig. 1) according to PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [9–11].

    • Measuring functional outcome in upper extremity soft-tissue sarcoma: Validation of the Toronto extremity salvage score and the QuickDASH patient-reported outcome instruments

      2022, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      The strong correlation of TESS and QLQ-C30 results has been previously reported, as well as a correlation with other HRQL measures.35 In recent studies assessing the construct validity of the QuickDASH, it was found to correlate with patients’ capability and HRQL.23,36 These findings supports our study findings, as the strongest correlations were noted with physical function, role and global health status items.

    View full text