QuickDASH Outcome Measure

  • Uncategorized

QuickDASHOutcome Measure

QuickDASHOutcome Measure

QuickDASHuses only 11 items to evaluate the ability of patient engaging inparticular upper extremity activities. Apparently, the OM differsfrom the original DASH in the fact that it can only apply to patientsconferring with a singular or multiple impairments regarding theshoulder, arm, and also the hand. In such case, it better suits an80-year-old female patient with an acute shoulder pain.

Meanwhile,multiple psychometric properties including validity, reliability, andfeasibility, can help to determine the strength of the quickDASHoutcome. First of all, QuickDASH is highly acceptable. Its scores areslightly higher compared to possible DASH scores. Its outcome measurecorrelates well with other outcome measures with a range of moderateto extremely high (Ozaras, Cidem, Demir, et al. 2009). Further, itscorrelation to the impairment, which is an acute shoulder pain, wasmoderate. Typically, QuickDASH outcome measure application inevaluating the patient showed correlation estimates differing by lessthan 0.07 when compared to other OMs (Ozaras, Cidem, Demir, et al.2009). Therefore, it maintained construct validity, which makes itnot only officially binding, but also cogency.

QuickDASHand DASH does not measure similar content, but their total levelscores are similar. For instance, 71.2 versus 66.2 DASH in the elbow,then 100 equal no signs, hence P &lt 0.001, which is theunderestimate symptoms relating to quickDASH. However, wrist having72.9 versus 78.6 DASH, 100 equal full functions, hence P &lt 0.001is an overestimates disability (Angst, Goldhahn, &amp Drerup, et al.2009). While considering subdomains like symptoms, quickDASH is lessmeticulous compared to DASH. Its validity is high when applied forsummary assessments (Angst, Goldhahn, &amp Drerup, et al. 2009).

Further,quickDASH reliability is efficient. Other randomly-created 11 itemforms may show agreement with DASH while revealing similar devotion,but they also have competent scores than DASH both at follow-up andat the baseline (Gummesson, Ward &amp Atroshi, 2006). The sameapplies to quickDASH, hence making it as highly effective. Clearly,differences between outcome measures are statistically essential, buttheir magnitude is not clinically significant (Gummesson, Ward &ampAtroshi, 2006). There is a possibility of unnecessary items in DASHdue to their high number. In such case, utilizing fewer items provessufficient while assessing problems, and also with the similar degreeof reliability.

Lastly,quickDASH outcome measure is highly feasible. Unlike the DASH, itemploys 11 items in its measurements. The questions are easy andprecise hence the chances of yielding competent performance arehigh. Meanwhile, the OM utilizes a scale of 5-point Likert. In suchcase, the patient is able to choose a suitable number comparable tohis/her function level/severity level (Kennedy, Beaton &amp Couban,et al. 2013). QuickDASH, however, makes it easy to measure one’sseverity of symptoms as well as the ability to absorb forces andcomplete tasks. The level of the problem is determined by the score.Higher scores show greater standards of severity while lower scoresindicate lower measures of austerity (Kennedy, Beaton &amp Couban,et al. 2013). Clearly, accomplishing quickDASH is easy, an approachthat make it applicable in most clinical scenarios.

Forone to efficiently measure the acute shoulder pain, quickDASH is thebest OM. It has slightly higher scores, which gives room for greaterimprovements. Potentially, the OM has a competent precision whiledetecting distinct degrees of disability (Ozaras, Cidem, Demir, etal. 2009). In such case, it is important to employ the outcomemeasure, especially in cases that require quick assessment of bothsymptoms and functions.


Angst,F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S, et al. (2009). How sharp is the shortQuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short formof the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire inthe strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions.Qualityof Life Research,18(8), 1043-1051.

Gummesson,C., Ward, M. M., &amp Atroshi, I. (2006). The shortened disabilitiesof the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (Quick DASH): validityand reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMCmusculoskeletal disorders,7(1), 44.

Kennedy,C., Beaton, D. &amp Couban, R, et al. (2013). Measurement propertiesof the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcomemeasure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematicreview. Qualityof life research,22(9), 2509-2547.

Ozaras,N., Cidem, M., Demir, S, et al. (2009). Shoulder pain and functionalconsequences: does it differ when it is at dominant side or not?Journalof back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation,22(4), 223-225.