Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire

Last Updated

October 17, 2021

Purpose

The DASH is a 30-item patient-reported outcome measure utilized to assess symptoms and function of the entire upper extremity.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym DASH

Area of Assessment

Upper Extremity Function

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

Arthritis + Joint Conditions
Multiple Sclerosis
Pain Management

Musculoskeletal Conditions

Non-Specific Patient Population

Multiple Sclerosis

Joint Pain and Fractures

Chronic Pain

Arthritis

Developed jointly by the Institute for Work & Health and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).
The DASH was first published in 1996 and is now available in 2 shortened versions:
1) QuickDASH
2) QuickDASH-9
The DASH is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limbs. It has two, 4-item, optional modules used to measure symptoms and function in athletes, artists, and workers who require a high level of function.
Utilizes a 5-point Likert-Scale measuring from “1” (lowest level of difficulty or severity) to 5” (highest level of difficulty or severity) based on the patient’s reported ability to conduct the activities or tasks.
Total scores range from 0 (minimum) to (100) maximum.
Scoring the optional 2 4-item high performance sections:
1) Add values of each response, then divide by 4, subtract 1 and multiply by 25: [((sum of values/4) - 1)*25]
2) Optional modules should not be scored if items are missing
The DASH has been formally translated into 41 versions. There are 18 translations in progress.
More information, including a PDF of the DASH, can be found on the DASH website linked above.

Number of Items

4 additional optional elements

5-30 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 - 100

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jill Smiley, MPH and Allison Todd in 5/2012; Updated by Franco Calabrese, SPT, Adam Fagan, SPT, and Patrick Galvin, SPT in 11/2012. Updated by Melissa M. Eden PT, DPT, OCS. Updated in 2021 by Victoria Kryliouk, MSHS, BA & Sydney Greenspan, OTR/L, MS.

Body Part

Upper Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function
Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommended as a self-reported measure to track shoulder pain and dysfunction in Shoulder Health after SCI: PT Examination, a fact sheet produced by the Spinal Cord Injury Special Interest Group of the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy (ANPT): https://www.neuropt.org/docs/default-source/sci-sig/fact-sheets/scisig_shoulder-health-after-sci--pt-examination.pdf?sfvrsn=2dd05343_2

Recommended for exposure to students as part of the Final EDGE Recommendations by the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy (ANPT): https://www.neuropt.org/docs/default-source/edge-documents/final-strokeedge-ii-recommendations-spread-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=ffc5443_2

Considerations

The DASH is available in 54 languages and dialects.
- The translations of the DASH may improve comprehension of a patient’s perspective of their functional performance.
Subjective, not performance-based
- A patient’s perspective of their functional status may differ from the skilled observation of a clinician.
Recall bias may influence the results.
A short form is also available as an alternative: 11-item QuickDASH with optional 4-item Work and Sports/Performing Arts modules.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Osteoarthritis: (Vermeulen et al, 2009; n = 19, Primary Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis; evaluated at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months, Osteoarthritis)

Analysis of the Change in DASH Score From Preoperative Clinical Evaluations

	Mean	SD	SEM	Lower	Upper
DASH 0 to DASH 3	-14.93	9.63	2.27	-10.14	-19.72
DASH 0 to DASH 6	-20.54	14.58	3.26	-13.71	-27.36
DASH 0 to DASH 12	-20.83	20.09	4.49	-11.42	-30.23

*Paired differences of the DASH scores. DASH 0 is mean DASH score preoperative, DASH 3 is mean DASH score at 3 months, DASH 6 is mean DASH score at 6 months, and DASH 12 is mean DASH score at 12 months.

Normative Data

Osteoarthritis: (MacDermid et al., 2007; n = 122; mean age = 65.4 (8.1) years; time since surgery = 54.2 (23.1) months)

Arthroplasty of the carpometacarpal joint for osteoarthritis

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
DASH	0	90.8	36.7	24.03
PRWHE	0	92	41.5	28.33
SF-36 Mental Component Summary	21.9	66.7	47.9	11.67
SF-36 Physical Component Summary	12.0	61.5	34.6	11.38

PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation; DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire; SF-36: Short Form 36

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Chiari-Grisar et al, 2006; n = 37; Function following finger joint arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; study performed in Austria; grip strength scores measured with a Martin vigorimeter, Rheumatoid Arthritis)

Instrument	Mean (SD)	Median	Min	Max
DASH (German version) score	44.52 (19.14)	44.2	5	82.5
HAQ score	1.12 (0.76)	1.06	0	2.88

DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire

Test/Retest Reliability

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Raven et al., 2008)

ICC = 0.97

Swedish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bilberg, Bremell, & Mannerkorpi, 2012; n = 67)

ICC = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)

Internal Consistency

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Raven et al., 2008)

Cronbach's alpha = 0.97

Construct Validity

Osteoarthritis: (MacDermid et al., 2007; n = 122; function following arthroplasty of the carpometacarpal joint of the hand for osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis)

Correlations of the SF-36 component summary scores with PRWHE and DASH Scores

SF-36 Subscale	PRWHE	DASH
Physical Component Summary	-0.35	-0.49
Mental Component Summary	-0.45	-0.49

All correlations significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); SF-36: Short Form 36; PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation

Correlation between self-report function scores and measured impairments*

	PRWHE total	DASH
Strength
Grip	-0.45**	-0.43**
Tripod pinch	-0.45**	-0.44**
Key pinch	-0.36**	-0.40**
Wrist flexion	-0.39**	-0.44**
Wrist extension	-0.39**	-0.37**
Dexterity
NK small objects	0.32**	0.30**
NK medium objects	0.39**	0.48**
NK large objects	0.44**	0.48**
Range of Motion
Wrist flexion	-0.26**	-0.23*
Wrist extension	-0.05	-0.07
Radial deviation	-0.15	-0.12
Ulnar deviation	-0.23*	-0.12
Pronation	-0.05	-0.03
Supination	0.00	-0.01
Thumb IP flexion	0.03	-0.08
Thumb MCP flexion	0.03	0.05
Thumb IP extension	0.12	0.06
Thumb MCP extension	-0.10	-0.02
Thumb CMC extension	-0.12	-0.11
Thumb abduction	0.01	0.03
Thumb opposition	0.11	0.10
Hand Span	-0.34**	-0.25**

*Impairments measured using the NK Hand Assessment System; **Correlation significant at 0.01 (2-tailed). *Correlation significant at 0.05 (2-tailed); PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation; DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Chiari-Grisar et al., 2006; n = 37; Function following finger joint arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; study performed in Austria, Rheumatoid Arthtitis)

SF-36 Subscale	Mean (SD)	Correlation to DASH (German version)
Physical functioning	47.16 (24.17)	-0.73 (P < 0.01)
Role-physical	32.43 (44.04)	-0.53 (P < 0.01)
Bodily pain	43.92 (22.37)	-0.53 (P < 0.01)
General health	51.41 (18.62)	-0.43 (P < 0.01)
Vitality	46.08 (22.36)	-0.51 (P < 0.001)
Social functioning	81.42 (21.77)	-0.35 (P < 0.03)
Role-emotional	72.97 (41.45)	-0.31 (P < 0.05)
Mental health	71.24 (18.66)	-0.57 (P < 0.001)

SF-36: Short Form 36; DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Raven et al., 2008)

Correlation of DASH and other outcome measures: (Pearson correlation)
- Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.88
- SF-36 – r = 0.70
- Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale – r = 0.85
- Disease Activity Score – r = 0.42
- Grip Strength – r = 0.41-0.48
- Visual Analog Scale – r = 0.60-0.65

Swedish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bilberg, Bremell, & Mannerkorpi, 2012; n = 67)

Correlation of DASH and other outcome measures: (Spearman correlation)
- Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.80
- Active shoulder-arm motion – r = -0.38 to -0.50
- Handgrip force – r = -0.46 to -0.59
- Activity-Induced pain – r = 0.66
- Disease Activity Score in 28 joints – r = 0.63

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Raven et al., 2008)

Floor effect: none
Ceiling effect: none

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

Calculated using SEM = Standard Deviation of first outcome * square root (1-ICC)
SEM = 21.7 * square root (1 - 0.928) = 5.82

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

Calculated from MDC = 1.96 * SEM * (square root of 2)
MDC = 1.96 * 5.82 * (square root of 2) = 16.1

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: (Angst et al., 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0), Total Elbow Arthroplasty)

Standard Response Mean = 0.55, Effect Size = 0.20)

Pre-Operative and Post-Operative Change in UE Function: (Gummesson, Atroshi, & Ekdah, 2003; n = 109; patients had surgery for a variety of upper extermity conditions; assessed prior to surgery then again 6 to 21 months later; Swiss sample)

Patients (n = 53) reporting "much better" or "much worse"
- Mean Change = 19 (15 to 23) points
Patients (n = 21) reporting "somewhat better" or "somewhat worse"
- Mean Change = 10 (7 to 14) points
Patients (n = 9) reporting "no change"
- Mean change = -3 (-3 to 3.0) points

Normative Data

Elbow Disorders: (Angst et al., 2005; n = 79; mean age = 64.1 (13.3) years; time since surgery = 11.2 (3.0) years; Function following total elbow arthroplasty; Swiss sample)

Instrument	Mean (SD)	n
DASH	55.3 (23.2)	77
DASH function	51.1 (25.2)	77
DASH symptoms	66.1 (22.8)	79
SF-36 physical functioning	48.7 (28.4)	79
SF-36 role physical	45.1 (44.7)	76
SF-36 bodily pain	59.1 (27.5)	79
SF-36 general health	56.0 (25.7)	78
SF-36 vitality	48.4 (22.4)	78
SF-36 social functioning	80.7 (22.8)	79
SF-36 role emotional	74.8 (41.9)	72
SF-36 mental health	71.4 (20.6)	78
SF-36 physical component summary	37.2 (12.0)	75
SF-36 mental component summary	52.3 (11.5)	69

SF-36: Short Form 36; DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire

Wrist Disorders: (Imaeda et al., 2010; n = 117; adapted by the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand, Japanese sample, Wrist Disorders)

Score for PRWE, DASH-JSSH, and VAS:

Instrumental Scale	No.	Mean	SD	Median	Minimum	Maximum
DASH-JSSH	116	44.2	28.2	39.5	0(a)	100(b)
PRWE	112	58.7	24.3	61.5	5	99
VAS	111	59.3	24.3	60	6	100(b)

PRWE: Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation; DASH-JSSH: Disability/Symptom scale of the Japanese version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnatire; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (0-10 Scale); Maximum Health Status Scores (Ceiling)

Test/Retest Reliability

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69)

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC 2,1 = 0.928)

Instrument	ICC (95% CI)	Mean Difference	Limits of Agreement
EQ-5D	0.773 (0.604 to 0.875)	0.03 (0.00 to 0.06)	-0.18 to 0.24
HUI3	0.471 (0.184 to 0.686)	0.04 (-0.03 to 0.11)	-0.37 to 0.45
SF-6D	0.794 (0.634 to 0.889)	0.01 (-0.02 to 0.04)	-0.17 to 0.19
DASH	0.928 (0.860 to 0.963)	0.4 (-2.3 to 3.1)	-15.2 to 15.9

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: (Angst et al., 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0))

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

See Test-retest reliability in Proximal Humeral Fractures for format

Construct Validity

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

Spearman Correlations between Study Instruments

SF-12 PCS	0.49	1
DASH	-0.76		1
EQ-5D	0.53	0.73	-0.75	1
HUI3	0.38*	0.63	-0.58	0.63	1
SF-6D	0.45	0.83	-0.73	0.74	0.59	1

All correlations are significant to P < 0.01, except Self Function, HUI3 where P < 0.02.

Adhesive Capsulitis: (Staples, Forbes, Green, & Buchbinder, 2010)

SPADI – r = 0.55
Croft Index – r = 0.65
Visual Analog Scale – r = 0.31
Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.54

Shoulder Arthroplasty (Switzerland, German-language): (Angst et al., 2004; n = 43)

SF-36 (PCS) – r = 0.67
SF-36 (MCS) – r = 0.06
SPADI – r = 0.93
pASES – r = 0.79
cASES – r = 0.59
Constant Shoulder – r = 0.82

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Elbow Disorders: (Angst et al., 2005)

DASH Floor and Ceiling Effects:

	n	Minimum	Maximum	Floor, %	Ceiling, %
DASH symptoms	79	12.5	100.0	0	6
DASH function	77	4.3	100.0	0	3
DASH	77	15.0	100.0	0	1

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69)

No Floor effect established
Moderate: 7% ceiling effect

Responsiveness

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: (Angst et al., 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0))

Effect Size = 0.56, Sensitivity = 0.59, Specificity = 0.71

Wrist Disorders: (Imaeda et al, 2010; n = 117; Japanese Version, adapted by the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand)

Standardized Response Means and Effect Size of PRWE and DASH

	Total			Radius Fracture
Instrument Scale	No.	SRM	Effect Size	No.	SRM	Effect Size
DASH	50***	1.30	1.20	24***	2.13	2.05
PRWE	50***	1.55	1.92	24***	1.90	3.32
VAS	49***	1.75	2.23	24***	2.00	2.96

SRM, Standardized Response Means; PRWE, Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; ***Significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative median values (p < 0.001)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Schmitt & Di Fabio, 2004)

SEM = 5.22

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

SEM = 4.6

Proximal Humeral Fractures: (Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

Calculated using SEM = Standard Deviation of first outcome * square root (1-ICC)
SEM = 21.7 * square root (1 - 0.928) = 5.82

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Schmitt & Di Fabio, 2004)

MDC90 = 12.2

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

MDC90 = 10.7
MDC95 = 12.75

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Adults with upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints undergoing surgery: (Angst, Schwyzer, Aeschlimann, Simmen, Goldhahn, 2011)

MCID = 10.2

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Schmitt & Di Fabio, 2004)

MCID = 10.2

Test/Retest Reliability

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Schmitt & Di Fabio, 2004)

ICC = 0.91

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

ICC = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98)

Internal Consistency

Adults with upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints undergoing surgery: (Gummesson, Atroshi, & Ekdahl, 2003)

Cronbach's alpha = 0.92-0.97

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Schmitt & Di Fabio, 2004)

Global Disability Rating – Spearman r = 0.67-0.71

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

SPADI pain – Pearson r = 0.79, Spearman r = 0.76
SPADI function – Pearson r = 0.85, Spearman r = 0.83

Discriminant Validity:

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

Participants who were working with their upper limb condition and were able to continue to work had a significantly lower disability than those unable to work (26.8 vs. 50.7, t = -7.51, p < 0.0001).
Similarly, the DASH was able to discriminate between those who could do everything they wanted to vs. those who could not (23.6 vs. 47.1, t = -5.81, p < 0.0001).

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: (Beaton et al., 2001)

Floor effect: none
Ceiling effect: only 1 of 200 in the sample scored 0 points

Internal Consistency

Adults with Multiple Sclerosis: (Cano, Barrett, Zajicek, & Hobart, 2011)

Cronbach's alpha = 0.98

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Intercollegiate Athletes: (Hsu et al., 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical)

3.61 (Calculated from MDC = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2; 10 = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Intercollegiate Athletes: (Hsu et al., 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical)

MDC = 10

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Intercollegiate Athletes: (Hsu et al., 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical)

Test/Retest Reliability

Overhead Athletes: (Alberta et al., 2010; n = 252 mean age = 23.7)

Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.536)

Internal Consistency

General Population: (Hunsaker, Cioffi, Amadio, Wright, & Caughlin, 2002)

Cronbach's alpha = 0.94-0.98

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Intercollegiate Athletes: (Hsu et al., 2010, Intercollegiate Athletes)

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Floor %	Ceiling %
DASH	321	0	100	0	65.11

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Neck Pain: (Mehta et al., 2010; n = 66, mean age= 40.6 (14.2))

Both versions of the DASH showed high correlation (0.82-0.84) with the NDI and moderate correlation with the CSOQ and VAS.

Correlation Between Self-Report Measures

	CSOQ Neck Pain	CSOQ Shoulder and Arm Pain	CSOQ Physical Symptom	CSOQ Functional Disability	CSOQ Psychological Distress	VAS
DASH	0.61*	0.55*	0.67*	0.58*	0.56*	0.55*

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); CSOQ= Cervical spine outcome questionnaire; VAS= Visual Analog Scale

Construct Validity

Neck Pain: (Huisstede et al., 2009; n = 679; 41.0 (23.0))

	SF-12 Physical Component	SF-12 Mental Component	Severity
	Correlation	Correlation	Correlation
S-A-H	0.62	0.15	0.55
N-S-A-H	0.61	0.16	0.52
N-S-A-H	0.63	0.19	0.5
N	0.62	0.27	0.44
S-A-H- only	0.61	0.1	0.56
N-only	0.57	0.33	0.44

Responsiveness

Neck Pain: (Huisstede et al., 2009; n = 679; 41.0 (23.0))

DASH was considered acceptable for each (sub)group
The responsiveness ratio was higher in the S-A-H–only group (1.92) than in the N–only group (1.38)

	Responsiveness Ratio
S-A-H Improved	2.01
S-A-H Stable
N-S-A-H Improved	1.91
N-S-A-H Stable
N-S Improved	2.04
N-S Stable
N Improved	1.85
N Stable
S-A-H Only Improved	1.92
S-A-H Only Stable
N-Only Improved	1.38
N-Only Stable

Bibliography

Alberta, F. G., El Attrache, N. S., et al. (2010). "The development and validation of a functional assessment tool for the upper extremity in the overhead athlete." Am J Sports Med 38(5): 903-911. Find it on PubMed

Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., et al. (2012). "Responsiveness of five outcome measurement instruments in total elbow arthroplasty." Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64(11): 1749-1755. Find it on PubMed

Angst, F., John, M., et al. (2005). "Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty." Arthritis Rheum 53(1): 73-82. Find it on PubMed

Chiari-Grisar, C., Koller, U., et al. (2006). "Performance of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome questionnaire and the Moberg picking up test in patients with finger joint arthroplasty." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(2): 203-206. Find it on PubMed

Dupeyron, A., Gelis, A., et al. (2010). "Heterogeneous assessment of shoulder disorders: validation of the Standardized Index of Shoulder Function." J Rehabil Med 42(10): 967-972. Find it on PubMed

Gummesson, C., Atroshi, I., et al. (2003). "The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery." BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4(11): 11. Find it on PubMed

Hsu, J. E., Nacke, E., et al. (2010). "The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(3): 349-354. Find it on PubMed

Huisstede, B. M., Feleus, A., et al. (2009). "Is the disability of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) also valid and responsive in patients with neck complaints." Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4): E130-138. Find it on PubMed

Imaeda, T., Uchiyama, S., et al. (2010). "Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation." J Orthop Sci 15(4): 509-517. Find it on PubMed

MacDermid, J. C., Wessel, J., et al. (2007). "Validity of self-report measures of pain and disability for persons who have undergone arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the hand." Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(5): 524-530. Find it on PubMed

Mehta, S., Macdermid, J. C., et al. (2010). "Concurrent validation of the DASH and the QuickDASH in comparison to neck-specific scales in patients with neck pain." Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(24): 2150-2156. Find it on PubMed

Slobogean, G. P., Noonan, V. K., et al. (2010). "The reliability and validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, EuroQol-5D, Health Utilities Index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(3): 342-348. Find it on PubMed

Vermeulen, G. M., Brink, S. M., et al. (2009). "Ligament reconstruction arthroplasty for primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (weilby technique): prospective cohort study." J Hand Surg Am 34(8): 1393-1401. Find it on PubMed

Last Updated

Atomized Content

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Instrument Reviewers

Body Part

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Internal Consistency

Construct Validity

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Construct Validity

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Responsiveness

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Test/Retest Reliability

Internal Consistency

Construct Validity

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Internal Consistency

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Test/Retest Reliability

Internal Consistency

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Responsiveness

Bibliography

Leicester Cough Questionna...

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

Structured Clinical Interv...