The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUICKDASH: COMPARISON OF THREE ITEM-REDUCTION APPROACHES
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop a short, reliable, and valid measure of physical function and symptoms related to upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders by shortening the full, thirty-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure. METHODS: Three item-reduction techniques were used on the cross-sectional field-testing data derived from a study of 407 patients with various upper-limb conditions. These techniques were the concept-retention method, the equidiscriminative item-total correlation, and the item response theory (Rasch modeling). Three eleven-item scales were created. Data from a longitudinal cohort study in which the DASH questionnaire was administered to 200 patients with shoulder and wrist/hand disorders were then used to assess the reliability (Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability) and validity (cross-sectional and longitudinal construct) of the three scales. Results were compared with those derived with the full DASH. RESULTS: The three versions were comparable with regard to their measurement properties. All had a Cronbach alpha of > or = 0.92 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of > or = 0.94. Evidence of construct validity was established (r > or = 0.64 with single-item indices of pain and function). The concept-retention method, the most subjective of the approaches to item reduction, ranked highest in terms of its similarity to the original DASH. CONCLUSIONS: The concept-retention version is named the QuickDASH. It contains eleven items and is similar with regard to scores and properties to the full DASH. A comparison of item-reduction approaches suggested that the retention of clinically sensible and important content produced a comparable, if not slightly better, instrument than did more statistically driven approaches.
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
Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., Bombardier, C., Beaton, D., Cole, D., Davis, A., Hawker, G., Katz, J. N., Makela, M., Marx, R. G., et al. (1996) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::aid-ajim4>3.0.co;2-l · Cited by 5,025
Self-citationIndividual-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
Measuring the whole or the parts?
Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., Tarasuk, V., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · Journal of Hand Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0894-1130(01)80043-0 · Cited by 1,306
Self-citationMethods for Testing Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability
Ware, J. E., & Gandek, B. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00085-7 · Cited by 618
SOLVING MEASUREMENT PROBLEMS WITH THE RASCH MODEL
WRIGHT, B. D. (1977) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00031.x · Cited by 591
Liang, M. H., Larson, M. G., Cullen, K. E., & Schwartz, J. A. (1985) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780280513 · Cited by 588
A comparison of different indices of responsiveness
Wright, J. G., & Young, N. L. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3 · Cited by 450
Self-citationBeaton, D. E., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Bombardier, C. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00296-x · Cited by 406
Self-citationMacDermid, J. C., Richards, R. S., Donner, A., Bellamy, N., & Roth, J. H. (2000) · The Journal of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu25a0330 · Cited by 404
The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now?
Beaton, D. E., Davis, A. M., Hudak, P., & Mcconnell, S. (2001) · The British Journal of Hand Therapy · doi:10.1177/175899830100600401 · Cited by 226
Self-citation
Cited by
Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., & Ferriero, G. (2014) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 · Cited by 924
Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires
Roy, J., MacDermid, J. C., & Woodhouse, L. J. (2009) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/art.24396 · Cited by 771
Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015 · Cited by 600
Angst, F., Schwyzer, H., Aeschlimann, A., Simmen, B. R., & Goldhahn, J. (2011) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.20630 · Cited by 592
Sebastiá-Forcada, E., Cebrián-Gómez, R., Lizaur-Utrilla, A., & Gil-Guillén, V. (2014) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.035 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- BEATON, D. E., WRIGHT, J. G., & KATZ, J. N.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1038-1046
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997915787
- Cited by
- 1,523
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 11.77
- 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 OF THE QUICKDASH: COMPARISON OF THREE ITEM-REDUCTION APPROACHES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/00004623-200505000-00015
- The paper
- BEATON, D. E., WRIGHT, J. G., & KATZ, J. N. (2005). DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUICKDASH: COMPARISON OF THREE ITEM-REDUCTION APPROACHES. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200505000-00015
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.