The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now?
Abstract
Outcome measurement is an essential component for defining the effectiveness of clinicians’ practice (Reiman 1988) and standardised measures make that job more consistent, comparable and valid (Cole et al 1994). Hand therapists have long recognised the need for the standardisation of outcome measures, particularly for performance-based measures such as strength testing (Mathiowetz et al 1985, Woody et al 1988) or joint motion. More recently there has been an increased interest in outcome measures that capture the patient's perspective of their status, and that are standardised. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) is a standardised outcome measure that could be used for this purpose (Hudak et al 1996, McConnell et al 1999). The DASH reflects the impact of a disorder in terms of physical function and symptoms, which are the two main reasons patients seek care for a disorder of the musculoskeletal system. The DASH is becoming widely used by clinicians and researchers (McConnell et al 1999). It is now important to revisit what we know about how well the DASH is able to measure what it purports to measure. The purpose of this paper is to review the research that has been done to date on the DASH outcome measure, and to describe the implications of this for future research and for clinical practice.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6 · Cited by 1,078
Jacobson, N. S., Roberts, L. J., Berns, S. B., & McGlinchey, J. B. (1999) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.67.3.300 · Cited by 853
Cited by
DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUICKDASH: COMPARISON OF THREE ITEM-REDUCTION APPROACHES
BEATON, D. E., WRIGHT, J. G., & KATZ, J. N. (2005) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200505000-00015 · Cited by 1,523
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Beaton, D. E., Davis, A. M., Hudak, P., & Mcconnell, S.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Hand Therapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 109-118
- ISSN
- 1369-9571 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2336104222
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 1.55
- 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: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/175899830100600401
- The paper
- Beaton, D. E., Davis, A. M., Hudak, P., & Mcconnell, S. (2001). The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now? The British Journal of Hand Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1177/175899830100600401
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.