The structural validity of the Finnish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand: A Rasch model analysis

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION Hand Therapy Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.1177/1758998320907116
J. Ikonen, S. Hulkkonen, Jorma Ryhänen, Arja Häkkinen, Jaro Karppinen, Jaro Karppinen, Jussi P. Repo
{"title":"The structural validity of the Finnish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand: A Rasch model analysis","authors":"J. Ikonen, S. Hulkkonen, Jorma Ryhänen, Arja Häkkinen, Jaro Karppinen, Jaro Karppinen, Jussi P. Repo","doi":"10.1177/1758998320907116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) has previously been questioned. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of the Finnish version of the DASH for assessing disability in patients with hand complaints using Rasch Measurement Theory. Methods A cohort of 193 patients with typical hand and wrist complaints were recruited at a surgery outpatient clinic. The DASH scores were analysed using the Rasch model for differential item functioning, unidimensionality, fit statistics, item residual correlation, coverage/targeting and reliability. Results In the original DASH questionnaire, the item response thresholds were disordered for 2 of 30 of the items. The item fit was poor for 9 of 30 of the items. Unidimensionality was not supported. There was substantial residual correlation between 87 pairs of items. Item reduction (chi square 95, degrees of freedom 50, p < 0.001) and constructing two testlets led to unidimensionality (chi square 0.64, degrees of freedom 4, p = 0.96). Person separation index was 0.95. The testlets had good fit with no differential item functioning towards age or gender. Conclusion Unidimensionality of the original Finnish version of the DASH was not supported, meaning the questionnaire seems to gauge traits other than disability alone. Hence, the clinician must be careful when trying to measure change in patients’ scores. Item reduction or the creation of testlets did not lead to good alternatives for the original Finnish DASH. Differential item functioning showed that the original Finnish scale exhibits minor response bias by age in one item. The original Finnish DASH covers different levels of ability well among typical hand surgery patients.","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1758998320907116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Introduction The construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) has previously been questioned. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of the Finnish version of the DASH for assessing disability in patients with hand complaints using Rasch Measurement Theory. Methods A cohort of 193 patients with typical hand and wrist complaints were recruited at a surgery outpatient clinic. The DASH scores were analysed using the Rasch model for differential item functioning, unidimensionality, fit statistics, item residual correlation, coverage/targeting and reliability. Results In the original DASH questionnaire, the item response thresholds were disordered for 2 of 30 of the items. The item fit was poor for 9 of 30 of the items. Unidimensionality was not supported. There was substantial residual correlation between 87 pairs of items. Item reduction (chi square 95, degrees of freedom 50, p < 0.001) and constructing two testlets led to unidimensionality (chi square 0.64, degrees of freedom 4, p = 0.96). Person separation index was 0.95. The testlets had good fit with no differential item functioning towards age or gender. Conclusion Unidimensionality of the original Finnish version of the DASH was not supported, meaning the questionnaire seems to gauge traits other than disability alone. Hence, the clinician must be careful when trying to measure change in patients’ scores. Item reduction or the creation of testlets did not lead to good alternatives for the original Finnish DASH. Differential item functioning showed that the original Finnish scale exhibits minor response bias by age in one item. The original Finnish DASH covers different levels of ability well among typical hand surgery patients.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
芬兰版《手臂、肩膀和手的残疾》的结构效度:Rasch模型分析
臂肩手残疾问卷(DASH)的构效度一直受到质疑。本研究的目的是利用Rasch测量理论评估芬兰版DASH评估手部疾病患者残疾的测量特性。方法选取某外科门诊193例典型手足部疾患患者作为研究对象。使用Rasch模型对DASH分数进行差异项目功能、单维性、拟合统计、项目残差相关性、覆盖/目标和可靠性分析。结果在原DASH问卷中,30个题项中有2个题项反应阈值出现紊乱。在30个项目中,有9个项目的契合度较差。不支持单维性。87对条目之间存在显著残差相关。项目缩减(卡方95,自由度50,p < 0.001)和构建两个测试导致单维性(卡方0.64,自由度4,p = 0.96)。人分离指数为0.95。该测试具有良好的配合,没有不同的项目功能对年龄或性别。结论原始芬兰版DASH的单维性不被支持,这意味着问卷似乎衡量了除残疾之外的其他特征。因此,临床医生在试图测量患者得分的变化时必须小心。项目的减少或测试的创建并没有为最初的芬兰DASH带来好的替代品。差异项目功能显示原始芬兰量表在一个项目上表现出轻微的年龄反应偏差。芬兰独创的DASH很好地涵盖了典型手外科患者的不同能力水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hand Therapy
Hand Therapy REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Exploring patient perception of decision-making in carpal tunnel release surgery: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Rehabilitation of stage-one scapholunate instability (ReSOS): An online survey of UK practice. Production time and practicability of 3D-Printed wrist orthoses versus low temperature thermoplastic wrist orthoses. What are the barriers to upper limb splint adherence, and how is adherence measured? A systematic review. Are occupational therapists in hand therapy working in an occupation-centered way? A cross sectional survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1