Assessment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire for use in patients after neck dissection for head and neck cancer
Corresponding Author
David P. Goldstein MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author: D. P. Goldstein, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Princess Margaret Hospital, Room 3-952, 610 University Avenue, Toronto Ontario, M5G 2M9, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJolie Ringash MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorJonathan C. Irish MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorRalph Gilbert MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorPatrick Gullane MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDale Brown MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorWei Xu PhD
Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorRyan Del Bel
Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDouglas Chepeha MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan
Search for more papers by this authorAileen M. Davis PhD
Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
David P. Goldstein MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author: D. P. Goldstein, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Princess Margaret Hospital, Room 3-952, 610 University Avenue, Toronto Ontario, M5G 2M9, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJolie Ringash MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorJonathan C. Irish MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorRalph Gilbert MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorPatrick Gullane MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDale Brown MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorWei Xu PhD
Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorRyan Del Bel
Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDouglas Chepeha MD
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan
Search for more papers by this authorAileen M. Davis PhD
Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background
In this cross-sectional study, the sensibility, test-retest reliability, and validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire were assessed in patients who underwent neck dissection.
Methods
Sensibility was assessed with a questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was performed with completion of the DASH questionnaire 2 weeks after initial completion; validity, by evaluating differences in scores between patients undergoing different types of neck dissections and correlating DASH scores with Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) scores.
Results
The DASH questionnaire met sensibility criteria. For test-retest reliability analysis, the intraclass coefficient was 0.91. The DASH questionnaire showed differences between patients who underwent accessory nerve-sacrifice and nerve-sparing neck dissection. DASH questionnaire scores strongly correlated with NDII scores (r = -0.86).
Conclusion
Although this study provides preliminary data on some psychometric properties of the DASH questionnaire in patients who have undergone a neck dissection, further assessment of responsiveness and other properties are required. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 37: 234-242, 2015
REFERENCES
- 1
Streiner DL,
Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231881.001.0001 Google Scholar
- 2 Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1341–1345.
- 3 Goldstein DP, Ringash J, Bissada E, et al. Scoping review of the literature on shoulder impairments and disability after neck dissection. Head Neck 2013. [Epub ahead of print].
- 4 Taylor RJ, Chepeha JC, Teknos TN, et al. Development and validation of the neck dissection impairment index: a quality of life measure. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128: 44–49.
- 5 Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 Suppl 11: S174–S188.
- 6 Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 128–146.
- 7 Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109–1120.
- 8 American Head and Neck Society. 7th International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer; 2008.
- 9 Dillman DA. Why choice of survey mode makes a difference. Public Health Rep 2006; 121: 11–13.
- 10 Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Melani Christian L. Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
- 11 AR Feinstein, editor. The theory and evaluation of sensibility. Clinimetrics. Westford, MA: Murray Printing Company; 1987. pp 141–166.
- 12 Rowe BH, Oxman AD. An assessment of the sensibility of a quality-of-life instrument. Am J Emerg Med 1993; 11: 374–380.
- 13
Hudak PL,
Amadio PC,
Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602–608.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 14 Solway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH outcome measure user's manual. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work and Health; 2002.
- 15 Kraemer HC, Korner AF. Statistical alternatives in assessing reliability, consistency, and individual differences for quantitative measures: application to behavioral measures of neonates. Psychol Bull 1976; 83: 914–921.
- 16 LG Portney, MP Watkins, editors. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2000. pp 557–586.
- 17 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.
- 18 Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 335–341.
- 19 Kirkley AA, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109–1120.
- 20
McClure P,
Michener LA. Measures of adult shoulder function. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: S50–S88.
10.1002/art.11404 Google Scholar
- 21 Bushnell BD, McWilliams AD, Whitener GB, Messer TM. Early clinical experience with collagen nerve tubes in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33: 1081–1087.
- 22 Novak CB, Anastakis DJ, Beaton DE, Katz J. Patient-reported outcome after peripheral nerve injury. J Hand Surg Am 2009; 34: 281–287.
- 23 Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3: 347–352.
- 24 van der Heijden GJ, Leffers P, Bouter LM. Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 29–38.
- 25 Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 623–632.
- 26 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Inc; 1994.
- 27 McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293–307.
- 28 Beaton DE, Richards RR. Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 882–890.
- 29 Lauchlan DT, McCaul JA, McCarron T. Neck dissection and the clinical appearance of post-operative shoulder disability: the post-operative role of physiotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2008; 17: 542–548.
- 30 McNeely ML, Parliament MB, Seikaly H, et al. Effect of exercise on upper extremity pain and dysfunction in head and neck cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 2008; 113: 214–222.
- 31 Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20: 61–67.
- 32
Leslie LL. Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Soc Sci Res 1972; 1: 323–334.
10.1016/0049-089X(72)90080-4 Google Scholar
Citing Literature
