Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Hand20 questionnaire
Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Hand20 questionnaire
Background/aim: This study aimed to translate and validate the Turkish version of the Hand20 questionnaire.Materials and methods: Patients who had upper extremity involvement and stable symptoms for the previous 4 weeks in their upperextremities were included in the study. Patients who were illiterate or used a splint during the day were excluded from the study.Participants completed the Turkish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH-T) questionnaire once and thefinal version of the Hand20 questionnaire twice in a 7-day interval. Internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire was assessed.Moreover, correlations between Hand20 and DASH-T scores were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.Results: A total of 104 patients participated in the study. The Turkish version of the Hand20 met the set criteria of reliability andvalidity. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93) and test-retest reliability were excellent (r = 0.82). Hand20 showed a positive andstatistically significant correlation with DASH-T (r = 0.76, P < 0.001).Conclusion: The results showed that the Turkish version of the Hand20 had excellent test-retest reliability and validity. As a result ofthis study, it was determined that Hand20 was a valid and reliable instrument to measure the upper extremity disabilities of Turkishspeaking patients.
___
- 1. Kotsis SV, Lau FH, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan
Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and physical measurements in
outcome studies of distal radius fracture treatment. Journal of
Hand Surgery 2007; 32: 84-90.
- 2. De Smet L, De Kessel R, Degreef I, Debeer P. Responsiveness
of the Dutch version of the DASH as an outcome measure for
carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European
Volume) 2007; 32: 74-76.
- 3. Constant C, Murley A. A clinical method of functional
assessment of the shoulder. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research 1987; 214: 160-164.
- 4. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Katz JN. A selfadministered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of
symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1993; 75: 1585-1592.
- 5. Goula T, Ververidis A, Tripsianis G, Tilkeridis G, Drosos GI.
The Greek version of the Hand20 questionnaire: crosscultural
translation, reliability and construct validity. Hand Surgery
2015; 20: 33-38.
- 6. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines
for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report
measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186-3191.
- 7. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural
adaptation of health-related quality of life measures:
literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology 1993; 46: 1417-1432.
- 8. Suzuki M, Kurimoto S, Shinohara T, Tatebe M, Imaeda T et
al. Development and validation of an illustrated questionnaire
to evaluate disabilities of the upper limb. Journal of Bone and
Joint Surgery 2010; 92: 963-969.
- 9. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an
upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of
the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 1996; 29: 602-608.
- 10. Düger T, Yakut E, Öksüz Ç, Yörükan S, Bilgütay BS et al.
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Disabilities
of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire.
Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon 2006; 17: 99-107 (in Turkish with
an abstract in English).
- 11. Shinohara T, Tatebe M, Okui N, Yamamoto M, Kurimoto S et
al. Arthroscopically assisted repair of triangular fibrocartilage
complex foveal tears. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013; 38: 271-
277.
- 12. Feise RJ, Menke JM. Functional rating index: a new valid
and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical
change in spinal conditions. Spine 2001; 26: 78-87.
- 13. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s
β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and
two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika
2005; 70: 123-133.