Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: A revised version of the health assessment questionnaire

Wolfe, Frederick, Michaud, Kaleb, Pincus, Theodore·2004·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Objective: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) has become the most common tool for measuring functional status in rheumatology. However, the HAQ is long (34 questions, including 20 concerning activities of daily living and 14 relating to the use of aids and devices) and somewhat burdensome to score, has some floor effects, and has psychometric problems relating to linearity and confusing items. We undertook this study to develop and validate a revised version of the HAQ (the HAQ‐II). Methods: Using Rasch analysis and a 31‐question item bank, including 20 HAQ items, the 10‐item HAQ‐II was developed. Five original items from the HAQ were retained. We studied the HAQ‐II in 14,038 patients with rheumatic disease over a 2‐year period to determine its validity and reliability. Results: The HAQ‐II was reliable (reliability of 0.88, compared with 0.83 for the HAQ), measured disability over a longer scale than the HAQ, and had no nonfitting items and no gaps. Compared with the HAQ, modified HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 physical function scale, the HAQ‐II was as well correlated or better correlated with clinical and outcome variables. The HAQ‐II performed as well as the HAQ in a clinical trial and in prediction of mortality and work disability. The mean difference between the HAQ and HAQ‐II scores was 0.02 units. Conclusion: The HAQ‐II is a reliable and valid 10‐item questionnaire that performs at least as well as the HAQ and is simpler to administer and score. Conversion from HAQ to HAQ‐II and from HAQ‐II to HAQ for research purposes is simple and reliable. The HAQ‐II can be used in all places where the HAQ is now used, and it may prove to be easier to use in the clinic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.20549

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Wolfe, F., Michaud, K., & Pincus, T.
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10
Volume
50
Issue
10
Pages
3296-3305
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W1965781395
Cited by
280
References
50
FWCI
19.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: A revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.20549
The paper
Wolfe, F., Michaud, K., & Pincus, T. (2004). Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: A revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20549

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.