{"title":"Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review.","authors":"Susan de Klerk","doi":"10.1177/17589983221140433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.</p>","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":"28 1","pages":"3-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10584070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17589983221140433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire.
Methods: The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria.
Results: The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity.
Conclusion: The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.