手臂、肩膀和手部残疾问卷的结构和跨文化有效性评估:范围界定综述。

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION
Hand Therapy Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1177/17589983221140433
Susan de Klerk
{"title":"手臂、肩膀和手部残疾问卷的结构和跨文化有效性评估:范围界定综述。","authors":"Susan de Klerk","doi":"10.1177/17589983221140433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.</p>","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":"28 1","pages":"3-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10584070/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Susan de Klerk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17589983221140433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hand Therapy\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"3-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10584070/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hand Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17589983221140433\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17589983221140433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

简介:手臂、肩膀和手部残疾(DASH)问卷是一项患者报告的结果测量(PROM),已被翻译并跨文化适应至少50种语言。自1996年该测量方法问世以来,许多研究人员已经报道了该工具在翻译和跨文化适应后的结构有效性(包括结构和跨文化有效性)。本范围界定综述的目的是确定用于DASH问卷结构和跨文化有效性的心理测量评估的方法。方法:使用范围界定审查的最新方法指南和范围界定审查清单的PRISMA扩展。搜索EBSCOHost(Academic Search Premier、Africa Wide、CINAHL、E-Journals和Medline)、PubMed和Google Scholar的文章(发表于1996-2022年间),并根据资格标准进行考虑。结果:范围界定审查整理了50篇文章(37个语言版本)中关于DASH问卷结构和跨文化有效性评估的证据。有三篇文章进行了验证性因素分析(CFA)来评估结构有效性,没有一篇文章进行多组验证性因子分析(MGCFA)以评估跨文化有效性。结论:基于COnsensus的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)分类法提出,结构有效性最好通过CFA进行评估,并事先提供维度证据。此外,跨文化有效性(测量不变性)将通过MGCFA进行评估。这项审查发现,CFA很少被使用,迄今为止,DASH问卷的翻译还没有适当评估跨文化有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review.

Introduction: The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire.

Methods: The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria.

Results: The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity.

Conclusion: The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hand Therapy
Hand Therapy REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信