Franchignoni Franco, Ferriero Giorgio, Giordano Andrea, Sartorio Francesco, Vercelli Stefano, Brigatti Elisa
Unit of Occupational Rehabilitation and Ergonomics, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, Clinica del Lavoro e della Riabilitazione, IRCCS, Via Revislate 13, I-28010 Veruno NO, Italy.
Man Ther. 2011 Apr;16(2):177-82. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.10.004. Epub 2010 Nov 1.
The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive psychometric analysis of QuickDASH, using both classical test theory and Rasch analysis, in order to examine in detail its metric properties. A convenience sample of 283 patients with upper limb disorders was enrolled. The QuickDASH item responses were extracted from the subjects' responses to the official full-length Italian version of DASH. Rating scale diagnostics showed disordered thresholds in some response categories, that were collapsed to optimize categorization. Exploratory factor analysis established unidimensionality of the QuickDASH, except for item 10 'tingling'. Similarly, QuickDASH items fitted the Rasch model (MnSq between 0.7 and 1.3) except for item 10, that showed an underfit (Infit MnSq = 1.62; Outfit MnSq = 2.01) and thus was deleted. The Rasch reliability indices of this 10-item QuickDASH were good but not excellent. In conclusion, the unidimensionality of QuickDASH has not been confirmed. Item 10 'tingling' did not belong to the dominant trait. Moreover, the number (and/or wording) of the QuickDASH response categories should undergo further investigation, and the QuickDASH seems more useful for group decisions than for everyday clinical application (i.e. monitoring outcome in single patients). Future studies should consider a QuickDASH revision, restarting from the full-length DASH.
本研究旨在运用经典测试理论和拉施分析对上肢功能障碍快速评估量表(QuickDASH)进行全面的心理测量分析,以便详细考察其测量属性。招募了283例上肢疾病患者的便利样本。QuickDASH的项目反应是从受试者对官方意大利语完整版上肢功能障碍评定量表(DASH)的回答中提取的。评分量表诊断显示某些反应类别中的阈值无序,对这些类别进行合并以优化分类。探索性因素分析确定了QuickDASH的单维性,但项目10“刺痛感”除外。同样,除项目10外,QuickDASH项目均符合拉施模型(均方拟合度在0.7至1.3之间),项目10显示拟合不足(内拟合均方 = 1.62;外拟合均方 = 2.01),因此被删除。这个10项QuickDASH的拉施信度指标良好但并非优异。总之,QuickDASH的单维性尚未得到证实。项目10“刺痛感”不属于主导特征。此外,QuickDASH反应类别的数量(和/或措辞)应进一步研究,并且QuickDASH似乎对群体决策比日常临床应用(即监测个体患者的结果)更有用。未来的研究应考虑从完整版DASH重新开始对QuickDASH进行修订。