Lending a hand: Can DASH items help ABILHAND improve manual ability measurement in multiple sclerosis?

Abstract

Background:

Our examination in multiple sclerosis (MS) of the ABILHAND, a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument measuring manual ability, identified limited measurement range and precision. These deficiencies could lead to type II errors in clinical trials.

Objectives:

This paper aims to determine if ABILHAND’s measurement performance in MS can be improved by adding relevant items from the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale (DASH).

Methods:

The 23-item ABILHAND and 30-item DASH were administered to 461 people with MS. Data from the ABILHAND were combined with 16 DASH items to create a 39-item scale (AD-39). Using Rasch Measurement Theory methods, we compared the psychometric properties of AD-39 with ABILHAND.

Results:

Data were analysed from 300 people. AD-39 performed robustly as a measure and had greater measurement range, lower floor and ceiling effects, and higher reliability (person separation index 0.97) than ABILHAND. Surprisingly, AD-39 appeared no better than ABILHAND at detecting group differences in self-reported hand function.

Conclusion:

Despite improving some psychometric properties, adding 16 DASH items to the ABILHAND did not improve its measurement performance to the degree expected. Our explanations for this anomaly emphasise the importance of evidence-based, conceptually driven scale modifications guided by hypothesis testing psychometric methods.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis manual ability upper limb function patient-reported outcome measurement measurement precision Rasch Measurement Theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Krishnan

Jaric

. Hand function in multiple sclerosis: Force coordination in manipulation tasks. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119: 2274–2281.

Lamers

Kerkhofs

Raats

. Perceived and actual arm performance in multiple sclerosis: Relationship with clinical tests according to hand dominance. Mult Scler 2013; 19: 1341–1348.

Johansson

Ytterberg

Claesson

. High concurrent presence of disability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2007; 254: 767–773.

World Health Organization (WHO). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO, 2001.

Penta

Tesio

Arnould

. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients: Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke 2001; 32: 1627–1634.

Barrett

Cano

Zajicek

. Can the ABILHAND handle manual ability in MS? Mult Scler 2013; 19: 806–815.

Hudak

Amadio

Bombardier

. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) [published erratum in Am J Ind Med 1996; 30: 372]. Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602–608.

McDonald

Compston

Edan

. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001; 50: 121–7.

Polman

Reingold

Edan

. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 2005; 58: 840–846.

10.

Dillman

. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

11.

Hobart

Cano

Warner

. What sample sizes for reliability and validity studies in neurology? J Neurol 2012; 259: 2681–2694.

12.

Ware

Jr Harris

Gandek

. MAP-R for Windows: Multitrait/multi-item analysis program—revised user’s guide. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Lab., 1997.

13.

Penta

Thonnard

Tesio

. ABILHAND: A Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1038–1042.

14.

Andrich

Sheridan

Luo

. RUMM2030: A Windows program for the analysis of data according to Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd, 2010.

15.

Rasch

. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Expanded ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

16.

Wright

Masters

. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA, 1982.

17.

Andrich

. Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.

18.

Hobart

Cano

. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: iii, ix–x, 1–177.

19.

Hobart

Cano

Zajicek

. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: Problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 1094–1105.

20.

Hobart

Cano

Posner

. Putting the Alzheimer’s cognitive test to the test II: Rasch Measurement Theory. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9 (1 Suppl): S10–S20.

21.

Cano

Barrett

Zajicek

. Beyond the reach of traditional analyses: Using Rasch to evaluate the DASH in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2011; 17: 214–222.

22.

Andrich

. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11: 571–585.

23.

Andrich

. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978; 43: 561–573.

24.

Marais

Andrich

. Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. J Appl Meas 2008; 9: 200–215.

25.

Andrich

. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Psychol Res 1982; 9: 95–104.

26.

Andrich

Sheridan

Luo

. Extending the RUMM2030 analysis. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd, 2009.

27.

McHorney

Ware

Jr Rogers

. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992; 30 (5 Suppl): MS253–MS265.

28.

McHorney

Ware

Jr Raczek

. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247–263.

29.

McHorney

Haley

Ware

Jr . Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 451–461.

30.

Hobart

Kalkers

Barkhof

. Outcome measures for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: Relative measurement precision of the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2004; 10: 41–46.

31.

Andrich

de Jong

JHAL

Sheridan

. Diagnostic opportunities with the Rasch model for ordered response categories. In: Rost

Langeheine

(eds) Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. Munster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 1997, pp.59–70.

32.

Andrich

Hagquist

. Real and artificial differential item functioning. J Educ Behav Stat 2012; 37: 387–416.

33.

Hobart

Cano

Baron

. Achieving valid patient-reported outcomes measurement: A lesson from fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2013; 19: 1773–1783.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB