Performance characteristics of the verbal QuickDASH.

PURPOSE

To quantify the performance of the verbally administered Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire by assessing its replication of self-administered scores, its test-retest reliability, and its rate of scorable completion compared with its self-administered, written administration.

METHODS

Fifty patients presenting for initial visits to a hand clinic were enrolled regardless of diagnosis. All patients completed a written and a verbal QuickDASH 1 day apart (25 patients written first; 25 patients verbal first). Intraclass correlation coefficients quantified the verbal questionnaire's ability to reproduce written scores. Participants verbally completed the questionnaire a final time, 5 months later, to assess test-retest reliability. To quantify the usability of survey data, we compared percentages of scorable surveys between written and verbally administered QuickDASH questionnaires in this study and in prior studies within our division.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 QuickDASH administration types for the entire sample was 0.91. Across all participants, there was a minimal change in mean score from a patient's written QuickDASH to that patient's first verbal QuickDASH score. Scoring consistency between QuickDASH administrations was similar for each administration sequence (phone followed by written vs. written followed by phone) and by diagnosis. Test-retest reliability between the 2 verbal administrations demonstrated good reliability and a minimal difference between scores. In this study, no written or verbal surveys were incomplete. Reviewing our practice, 17% of 258 written questionnaires produced unscorable data compared with 0% of 239 verbally administered surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that verbal administration of the QuickDASH replicates clinically relevant scores of the written QuickDASH, has good test-retest performance, and may minimize unusable data. These data allow researchers greater flexibility in gathering patient outcome data in both retrospective and prospective studies.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.