Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire

Abstract

Keywords

• -

Kol,Omuz ve El sorunları (Disabilities of the Arm,Shoulder and Hand - DASH) Anketi Türkçe uyarlamasının güvenirliği ve geçerliği

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkçe versiyon, DASH anketi, Sonuç ölçümleri, Geçerlik

Kaynakça

1. Colvillc RI, Nicholson KS, Belelıer I-lJ. Hand surgery and quality of life. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1999;24:263—266.
2. Szabo RM. Outcomes assessment in hand surgery: when are they nıeaningful'? J Hand Surg [Am], 2001;26:993
3. Davis AM, Beatoıı DE, Hudak P, et al. Measuring disability ofthe upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. .] Hand Ther. ;12:269—274. Düşer Overend TJ, Wuori—Feain .IL, Kramer JF, et al. Reliability of a patient—rated forearm evaluation questionnaire for patients with lateral epic-ondylitis. J Hand Ther. 1999;12:31—37.
4. Chiari-Grisar C., Koller U, Stamm TA. et al. Performance of the disabilities ofthe arm, shoulder and hand outcome questionnaire and the Moberg picking up test in patients with finger joint arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:203—206.
5. Jester A, Harth A, (_ienrıann G. Measuring levels of upper—extremity disability in employed adults using the DASH Questionnaire. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2005;30:1074. t-Iudak PL. Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH
6. (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602—608.
7. Jester A, Hartli A, Wind G, ct at. Disabilities ofthe arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire: determining functional activity profiles in patients with upper extremity disorders. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2005;30:23—28.
8. Turc-hin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. .I Bone .Ioinl Surg Am, l998;80:154—162. McConnel S, Beaton DE, Bombardier C. Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand: the DASH. outcome measure user’s manual. 1st ed. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health; 1999.

9. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al. 'l'ranstating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the JQOLA Project approach. International Quality ol'" Lite Assessment, .l Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:913—923.
10. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, likdahl C. The disabilities oi“ the ann, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self—rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskclet Disord. 2003;16;4:11.
11. Gay RE, Amadio PC, Johnson .TC. Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities ol" the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF—36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg [Am], 2003;28:250—254.
12. Soot-loo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, et al. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF—36. J Hand Surg [Am]. t)t}2;27:53T—541. Guitlemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines, J Clin Epidemic]. 1993;46:1417—1432.
13. Ware JF, Jr, Keller SD, Gandek B, et al. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Techno] Assess Health Care. ,] [1525—55].
14. Beaton DE, Bamhardier C, Guillemin F, et at. Guidelines for the cross—cultural adaptation of self report measures. Spine. 2000253 i$e—3191.
15. Of fenbaecher M, Ewert T. Sangha O, et al. Validation of a German version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH-G). J Rheumatol. ;29:401—402. Atroshi l. Gummcsson C, Andersson B, et at. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnairc: reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 17‘6 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:613—618.
16. Padua R. Padua L, (_.“eccarelli E, et a]. Italian version of the Disability of the Arm. Shoulder and Hand (DAS l) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2003;28:1?9—186.
17. Ilervas MT, Navarro Collado MJ, l’eiro S, et a]. Spanish version of the DASH questionnaire. Cross—cultural adaptation, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Med Clin (Bare). 2006;127:441—447.
18. Thelnistoclcous GS, Goudelis G, Kyrou I, et at. Translation into Greek, cross—cultural adaptation and validation of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH). .l Hand 'l‘her. ;19:350—357. Ortale AG, Araujo PM, Ferraz MB, ct a], Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and lland Questionnaire, Bray .I Med Biol Res. 2005;38:293—302.
19. Dubert T, Voche P, Duinontier C, et at. The DASH questionnaire. French translation of a trans—cultural adaptation. Cliir Main. 2001;20:294-302.
20. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36—item short—form health survey (SF-36]. l. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473~483.
21. Martin DP, Engelberg R. Age] J, et at. Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form—36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness impact Profile health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. l99î;79:1323—1335.
22. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö. Fisek G. ve ark. Kisa Form—36 (KF-36)'nin Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. l999;l2:](}2-106. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420—
23. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundation of Clinical Research Application to Practice. Norwalk '. Appleton&Lange, 1993.
24. Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J, et al. Musculoskcletal Function Assessment instrument: criterion and construct validity. J Orthop Res. 1996;]4: 182492.
25. Liang Mil, Fosscl AH, Larson MG. Comparisons oF Şve health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632—642.
26. Bessette l.. Sangha O, Kuntz KM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. .Vted Care, l998;36:491—502. Hâyorerapr' Rehabşr‘tasyon 17(3) 2006 Düger
27. Sauerbier M, Kluge S, Biekert B, et al. Subjective and 35, Hannah SD, Hudak PL. Spliııting and radial nerve palsy: objective outcomes after total wrist atthrodesis in a single—subject experiment. J Hand Ther. 2001;l4:l95— patients with radioearpal arthrosis or Kienbock's disease. 201.
28. Chir Main. 2000;19:223—231. 36. Pomeranee J. Outcome after repair of the seapholunate
29. Sauerbicr M, Trankle M, Erdnıaıın D, et al. Functional interosseous ligament and dorsal eapsulodesis for outcome with seaphotrapeziotrapezoid arthrodesis in the dynamic seapholunate instability due to trauma. .l' Hand treatment of Kienboek's disease stage lll. Ann Plast Surg [AnıL 2006;31:i380—1386, Surg. 2000;44:618-625.
30. — Her zamanki süre kadar bir müzik. aleti çalarken veya Spor yaparken zorluğunuz oldu 11-111? Fizyoterapi Rehabri'itasyon 17(3) 2006