Outcomes AnalysisPsychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Data were collected on 101 consecutive patients presenting to 1 of 2 outpatient orthopaedic physical therapy clinics (Wardenburg Health Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO and Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA) between August 2007 and June 2008 with a primary report of shoulder pain. Subjects had to be over the age of 18 and be able to read and understand English in order to complete the forms. All patients provided demographic information and completed a number of
Results
No patient exhibited a worsening of status (-4 or lower on GRC). The mean GRC for the 101 patients was 4.8 (sd = 1.9). Twenty-two patients were considered to have remained stable (-3 to +3 on the GRC) while 79 were considered to have improved (+4 or greater on the GRC). A significant difference existed in the mechanism of injury (traumatic versus nontraumatic) between the group that remained stable and the group that improved. Baseline characteristics for both groups can be found in Table I.
Discussion
If an outcome measure is to be used in clinical practice to determine if meaningful change has occurred, it is necessary to have knowledge of the instrument's psychometric properties including reliability, validity, and responsiveness. The outcome measure should exhibit acceptable reliability and validity, especially if it is used to guide clinical decision making. In determining the reliability and validity of an outcome measure, it is important to compare the questionnaire to a known
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Eric Levinson, Carl Faust, Kristina Gilman, Theresa Jacobs, Tim Mondale, Brendan O'Boyle, and Cody Weisbach for their assistance with data collection.
This study was approved by the Human Research Committee (HRC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO (Study # 0907.5-01) and the Institutional Review Board at Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA.
Disclaimer
Informed consent was not required, as the study did not involve any identifying personal data. The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other
References (37)
- et al.
Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale
Pain
(2001) - et al.
Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand Version of the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH-JSSH) questionnaire
J Orthop Sci
(2006) - et al.
Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference
Control Clin Trials
(1989) - et al.
The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods
Pain
(1986) - et al.
What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement?
Pain
(1994) - et al.
Measurement of pain
Surg Clin North Am
(1999) - et al.
A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales
Pain
(1994) - et al.
Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life
J Clin Epidemiol
(1999) - et al.
Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference
J Rheumatol
(2001) - et al.
Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches
J Bone Joint Surg (Am)
(2005)