View Item 

Show simple item record

Assessment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire for use in patients after neck dissection for head and neck cancer
dc.contributor.authorGoldstein, David P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRingash, Jolieen_US
dc.contributor.authorIrish, Jonathan C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGilbert, Ralphen_US
dc.contributor.authorGullane, Patricken_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Daleen_US
dc.contributor.authorXu, Weien_US
dc.contributor.authorDel Bel, Ryanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChepeha, Douglasen_US
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Aileen M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-19T15:40:51Z
dc.date.available2016-04-01T15:21:07Zen
dc.date.issued2015-02en_US
dc.identifier.citationGoldstein, David P.; Ringash, Jolie; Irish, Jonathan C.; Gilbert, Ralph; Gullane, Patrick; Brown, Dale; Xu, Wei; Del Bel, Ryan; Chepeha, Douglas; Davis, Aileen M. (2015). "Assessment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire for use in patients after neck dissection for head and neck cancer." Head & Neck 37(2): 234-242.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1043-3074en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0347en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110617
dc.description.abstractBackgroundIn 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.MethodsSensibility 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionAlthough 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, 2015en_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherDisabilities of the Armen_US
dc.subject.otherShoulderen_US
dc.subject.otherand Hand (DASH) questionnaireen_US
dc.subject.otherNeck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII)en_US
dc.subject.otherShoulder Pain and Disability Indexen_US
dc.subject.othershoulder disabilityen_US
dc.subject.othershoulder scalesen_US
dc.subject.othershoulder impairmentsen_US
dc.titleAssessment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire for use in patients after neck dissection for head and neck canceren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOtolaryngologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110617/1/hed23593.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hed.23593en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHead & Necken_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBot 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStreiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1341 – 1345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldstein 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].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngst 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeaton 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109 – 1120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Head and Neck Society. 7th International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer; 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDillman DA. Why choice of survey mode makes a difference. Public Health Rep 2006; 121: 11 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDillman DA, Smyth JD, Melani Christian L. Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeinstein AR, editor. The theory and evaluation of sensibility. Clinimetrics. Westford, MA: Murray Printing Company; 1987. pp 141 – 166.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRowe BH, Oxman AD. An assessment of the sensibility of a quality‐of‐life instrument. Am J Emerg Med 1993; 11: 374 – 380.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHudak 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSolway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH outcome measure user's manual. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work and Health; 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKraemer 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePortney LG, Watkins MP, editors. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2000. pp 557 – 586.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420 – 428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkley AA, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109 – 1120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcClure P, Michener LA. Measures of adult shoulder function. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: S50 – S88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBushnell 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNovak CB, Anastakis DJ, Beaton DE, Katz J. Patient‐reported outcome after peripheral nerve injury. J Hand Surg Am 2009; 34: 281 – 287.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3: 347 – 352.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 623 – 632.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Inc; 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual‐patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293 – 307.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeaton DE, Richards RR. Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross‐sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 882 – 890.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLauchlan 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcNeely 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20: 61 – 67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeslie LL. Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Soc Sci Res 1972; 1: 323 – 334.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
hed23593.pdf
Size:
591.3KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.