Skip to main content
  

Rehab Measures: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire

Link to instrument

DASH Website 

Title of Assessment

Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire 

Acronym

DASH

Instrument Reviewer(s)

Initially reviewed by Jill Smiley, MPH and Allison Todd in 5/2012; Updated by Franco Calabrese, SPT, Adam Fagan, SPT, and Patrick Galvin, SPT in 11/2012. Updated by Melissa M. Eden PT, DPT, OCS.

Summary Date

8/7/2014 

Purpose

The DASH is designed to evaluate disorders and measure disability of the upper extremities, and monitor change or function over time.

Description

Developed jointly by the Institute for Work & Health and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

The DASH was first published in 1996. It has 2 shortened versions, the QuickDASH and the QuickDASH-9. The DASH has been formally translated into 41 versions. There are 18 translations in progress.

The DASH is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limbs. It has two, 4-item, optional modules used to measure symptoms and function in athletes, artists, and workers who require a high level of function.

Scoring the DASH:

  • The 30-item disability/symptom section (item responses range from 1 (e.g. no difficulty, not at all, not limited, none, strongly disagree) to 5 (e.g. unable, extremely, unable, strongly agree))
  • Scoring: [(sum of n / n) - 1] x 25; n = number of completed responses (see test sheet for more information)
    • The DASH should not be scored if more than three items are missing 
  • Optional 4-item high performance section
    • Add values of each response, then divide by 4, subtract 1 and multiply by 25: [((sum of values/4) - 1)*25]
    • Optional modules should not be scored if items are missing
  • More information, including a PDF of the DASH, can be found on the DASH website

Area of Assessment

Upper Extremity Function 

Body Part

Upper Extremity 

ICF Domain

Body Structure; Body Function; Activity; Participation 

Domain

ADL; Motor 

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes 

Length of Test

06 to 30 Minutes 

Time to Administer

05 to 30 Minutes

Number of Items

30 (34, if option high performance section is needed) 

Equipment Required

None

Training Required

No Training

Type of training required

No Training 

Cost

Free 

Actual Cost

Free

Age Range

Adult: 18-64 years 

Administration Mode

Paper/Pencil 

Diagnosis

Arthritis; Geriatrics; Movement Disorders; Multiple Sclerosis; Pain 

Populations Tested

  • Adults with wrist, hand, elbow and should disorders
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Psoriatic Arthritis and Inflammatory Disease
  • Athletes
  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  • Elbow Arthroplasty
  • Neck Pain
  • Proximal Humeral Fractures
  • Trauma Disorders
  • Post-Operative Upper Extremity Surgery
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Adhesive Capsulitis
  • Non-traumatic neck complaints with Upper Extremity symptoms
  • Shoulder Impingement

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Intercollegiate Athletes:

(Hsu et al, 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical, Intercollegiate Athletes)

  • 3.61 (Calculated from MDC = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2; 10 = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2)
Osteoarthritis:
(Vermeulen et al, 2009; n = 19, Primary Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis; evaluated at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months, Osteoarthritis)
 
Analysis of the Change in DASH Score From Preoperative Clinical Evaluations
 
Mean
SD
SEM
Lower
Upper
DASH 0 to DASH 3
-14.93
9.63
2.27

-10.14

-19.72

DASH 0 to DASH 6

-20.54

14.58

3.26

-13.71
-27.36
DASH 0 to DASH 12
-20.83
20.09
4.49
-11.42
-30.23
 
*Paired differences of the DASH scores. DASH 0 is mean DASH score preoperative, DASH 3 is mean DASH score at 3 months, DASH 6 is mean DASH score at 6 months, and DASH 12 is mean DASH score at 12 months.

 

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al, 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

  • Calculated using SEM = Standard Deviation of first outcome * square root (1-ICC)
  • SEM = 21.7 * square root (1 - 0.928) = 5.82
Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:
 
(Schmitt J.S., Di Fabio R.P., 2004)
  • SEM = 5.22

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • SEM = 4.6

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Intercollegiate Athletes:

(Hsu et al, 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical, Intercollegiate Athletes)

  • MDC = 10

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al., 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

  • Calculated from MDC = 1.96 * SEM * (square root of 2)
  • MDC = 1.96 * 5.82 * (square root of 2) = 16.1
Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:
 
(Schmitt J.S., Di Fabio R.P., 2004)
  • MDC90 = 12.2

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • MDC90 = 10.7
  • MDC95 = 12.75

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Intercollegiate Athletes:

(Hsu et al, 2010; n = 321; mean age 19.4 (17.6-22.6) years; Pre-competition physical, Intercollegiate Athletes)

  • MCID = 10

Pre-operative and Post-operative change in UE Function:

(Gummesson, Atroshi and Ekdah; 2003; n = 109; patients had surgery for a variety of upper extermity conditions; assessed prior to surgery then again 6 to 21 months later; Swiss sample)

  • Patients (n = 53) reporting "much better" or "much worse"
    • Mean Change = 19 (15 to 23) points
  • Patients (n = 21) reporting "somewhat better" or "somewhat worse"
    • Mean Change = 10 (7 to 14) points
  • Patients (n = 9) reporting "no change"
    • Mean change = -3 (-3 to 3.0) points

Total Elbow Arthroplasty:

(Angst et al, 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0), Total Elbow Arthroplasty)

  • Standard Response Mean = 0.55, Effect Size = 0.20)
Adults with upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints undergoing surgery:
 
(Angst F., Schwyzer H.K., Aeschlimann A., Simmen B.R., Goldhahn J., 2011)
  • MCID = 10.2

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:

(Schmitt J.S., Di Fabio R.P., 2004)

  • MCID = 10.2

Cut-Off Scores

Not Established

Normative Data

Elbow Disorders: 
(Angst et al, 2005; n = 79; mean age = 64.1 (13.3) years; time since surgery = 11.2 (3.0) years; Function following total elbow arthroplasty; Swiss sample, Elbow Disorders)
 
Instrument
Mean (SD)
n
DASH
55.3 (23.2)
77
DASH function
51.1 (25.2)
77
DASH symptoms
66.1 (22.8)
79
SF-36 physical functioning
48.7 (28.4)
79
SF-36 role physical
45.1 (44.7)
76
SF-36 bodily pain
59.1 (27.5)
79
SF-36 general health
56.0 (25.7)
78
SF-36 vitality
48.4 (22.4)
78
SF-36 social functioning
80.7 (22.8)
79
SF-36 role emotional
74.8 (41.9)
72
SF-36 mental health
71.4 (20.6)
78
SF-36 physical component summary
37.2 (12.0)
75
SF-36 mental component summary
52.3 (11.5)
69
SF-36: Short Form 36
DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire
 
Osteoarthritis
(MacDermid et al, 2007; n = 122; mean age = 65.4 (8.1) years; time since surgery = 54.2 (23.1) months, Osteoarthritis)
 
Arthroplasty of the carpometacarpal joint for osteoarthritis
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
DASH
0
90.8
36.7
24.03
PRWHE
0
92
41.5
28.33
SF-36 Mental Component Summary
21.9
66.7
47.9
11.67
SF-36 Physical Component Summary
12.0
61.5
34.6
11.38
PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation
DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire
SF-36: Short Form 36
 
Rheumatoid Arthritis:
(Chiari-Grisar et al, 2006; n = 37; Function following finger joint arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; study performed in Austria; grip strength scores measured with a Martin vigorimeter, Rheumatoid Arthritis)
 
Instrument
Mean (SD)
Median
Min
Max
DASH (German version) score
44.52 (19.14)
44.2
5
82.5
HAQ score
1.12 (0.76)
1.06
0
2.88
DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire
HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire
 
Wrist Disorders
(Imaeda et al, 2010; n = 117; adapted by the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand, Japanese sample, Wrist Disorders)
 
Score for PRWE, DASH-JSSH, and VAS:
Instrumental Scale
No.
Mean
SD
Median
Minimum
Maximum
DASH-JSSH
116
44.2
28.2
39.5
0(a)
100(b)
PRWE
112
58.7
24.3
61.5
5
99
VAS
111
59.3
24.3
60
6
100(b)
PRWE: Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation
DASH-JSSH: Disability/Symptom scale of the Japanese version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnatire
VAS: Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (0-10 Scale)
Maximum Health Status Scores (Ceiling)
 

Test-retest Reliability

Overhead Athletes:

(Alberta et al, 2010; n = 252 mean age = 23.7, Overhead Athletes)

  • Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.536)

 

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al, 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC 2,1 = 0.928)

Instrument
ICC (95% CI)
Mean Difference
Limits of Agreement
EQ-5D
0.773 (0.604 to 0.875)
0.03 (0.00 to 0.06)
-0.18 to 0.24
HUI3
0.471 (0.184 to 0.686)
0.04 (-0.03 to 0.11)
-0.37 to 0.45
SF-6D
0.794 (0.634 to 0.889)
0.01 (-0.02 to 0.04)
-0.17 to 0.19
DASH
0.928 (0.860 to 0.963)
0.4 (-2.3 to 3.1)
-15.2 to 15.9

Total Elbow Arthroplasty:

(Angst et al, 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0), Total Elbow Arthroplasty)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96)
Rheumatoid Arthritis:
 
(Raven E.E.J., Haverkamp D., Siervelt I.N., et al., 2008)
  • ICC = 0.97

Swedish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis:

(Bilberg A., Bremell T., Mannerkorpi K., 2012; n = 67) 

  • ICC = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:

(Schmitt J.S., Di Fabio R.P., 2004)

  • ICC = 0.91

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • ICC = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al, 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

  • See Test-retest reliability in Proximal Humeral Fractures for format

Internal Consistency

Rheumatoid Arthritis:
 
(Raven E.E.J., Haverkamp D., Siervelt I.N., et al., 2008)
  • Cronbach's alpha = 0.97

Adults with upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints undergoing surgery:

(Gummesson C., Atroshi I., Ekdahl C., 2003)

  • Cronbach's alpha = 0.92-0.97

Adults with Multiple Sclerosis:

(Cano S., Barrett L., Zajicek J., Hobart J., 2011)  

  • Cronbach's alpha = 0.98

General Population:

(Hunsaker F.G., Cioffi D.A., Amadio P.C., Wright J.G., Caughlin B., 2002)

  • Cronbach's alpha = 0.94-0.98

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Neck Pain:

(Mehta et al., 2010; n = 66, mean age= 40.6 (14.2), Neck Pain)

  • Both versions of the DASH showed high correlation (0.82-0.84) with the NDI and moderate correlation with the CSOQ and VAS.

Correlation Between Self-Report Measures

CSOQ Neck Pain

CSOQ Shoulder and Arm Pain

CSOQ Physical Symptom

CSOQ Functional Disability

CSOQ Psychological Distress

VAS

DASH

0.61*

0.55*

0.67*

0.58*

0.56*

0.55*

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);
CSOQ= Cervical spine outcome questionnaire;
VAS= Visual Analog Scale

 

Construct Validity (Convergent/Discriminant)

Neck Pain:

(Huisstede et al., 2009; n = 679; 41.0 (23.0), Neck Pain)

SF-12 Physical Component
SF-12 Mental Component
Severity
Correlation
Correlation
Correlation
S-A-H
0.62
0.15
0.55
N-S-A-H
0.61
0.16
0.52
N-S-A-H
0.63
0.19
0.5
N
0.62
0.27
0.44
S-A-H- only
0.61
0.1
0.56
N-only
0.57
0.33
0.44

Osteoarthritis:
(MacDermid et al, 2007; n = 122; function following arthroplasty of the carpometacarpal joint of the hand for osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis)
 
Correlations of the SF-36 component summary scores with PRWHE and DASH Scores
SF-36 Subscale
PRWHE
DASH
Physical Component Summary
-0.35
-0.49
Mental Component Summary
-0.45
-0.49
All correlations significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
SF-36: Short Form 36
PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation
 
 
Correlation between self-report function scores and measured impairments*
PRWHE total
DASH
Strength
Grip
-0.45**
-0.43**
Tripod pinch
-0.45**
-0.44**
Key pinch
-0.36**
-0.40**
Wrist flexion
-0.39**
-0.44**
Wrist extension
-0.39**
-0.37**
Dexterity
NK small objects
0.32**
0.30**
NK medium objects
0.39**
0.48**
NK large objects
0.44**
0.48**
Range of Motion
Wrist flexion
-0.26**
-0.23*
Wrist extension
-0.05
-0.07
Radial deviation
-0.15
-0.12
Ulnar deviation
-0.23*
-0.12
Pronation
-0.05
-0.03
Supination
0.00
-0.01
Thumb IP flexion
0.03
-0.08
Thumb MCP flexion
0.03
0.05
Thumb IP extension
0.12
0.06
Thumb MCP extension
-0.10
-0.02
Thumb CMC extension
-0.12
-0.11
Thumb abduction
0.01
0.03
Thumb opposition
0.11
0.10
Hand Span
-0.34**
-0.25**
*Impairments measured using the NK Hand Assessment System
** Correlation significant at 0.01 (2-tailed). *Correlation significant at 0.05 (2-tailed)
PRWHE: Patient-Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation
DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al, 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

Spearman Correlations between Study Instruments
Self Function
1
SF-12 PCS
0.49
1
DASH
-0.76
1
EQ-5D
0.53
0.73
-0.75
1
HUI3
0.38*
0.63
-0.58
0.63
1
SF-6D
0.45
0.83
-0.73
0.74
0.59
1
All correlations are significant to P < 0.01, except Self Function, HUI3 where P < 0.02.

 
Rheumatoid Arthritis:
(Chiari-Grisar et al, 2006; n = 37; Function following finger joint arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; study performed in Austria, Rheumatoid Arthtitis)
 
SF-36 Subscale
Mean (SD)
Correlation to DASH (German version) 
Physical functioning
47.16 (24.17)
-0.73 (P < 0.01)
Role-physical
32.43 (44.04)
-0.53 (P < 0.01)
Bodily pain
43.92 (22.37)
-0.53 (P < 0.01)
General health
51.41 (18.62)
-0.43 (P < 0.01)
Vitality
46.08 (22.36)
-0.51 (P < 0.001)
Social functioning
81.42 (21.77)
-0.35 (P < 0.03)
Role-emotional
72.97 (41.45)
-0.31 (P < 0.05)
Mental health
71.24 (18.66)
-0.57 (P < 0.001)
SF-36: Short Form 36
DASH: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand
 

(Raven E.E.J., Haverkamp D., Siervelt I.N., et al., 2008)

  • Correlation of DASH and other outcome measures: (Pearson correlation)
    • Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.88
    • SF-36 – r = 0.70
    • Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale – r = 0.85
    • Disease Activity Score – r = 0.42
    • Grip Strength – r = 0.41-0.48
    • Visual Analog Scale – r = 0.60-0.65

Swedish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis:

(Bilberg A., Bremell T., Mannerkorpi K., 2012; n = 67)

  • Correlation of DASH and other outcome measures: (Spearman correlation)
    • Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.80
    • Active shoulder-arm motion – r = -0.38 to -0.50
    • Handgrip force – r = -0.46 to -0.59
    • Activity-Induced pain – r = 0.66
    • Disease Activity Score in 28 joints – r = 0.63

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems: 

(Schmitt J.S., Di Fabio R.P., 2004)

  • Global Disability Rating – Spearman r = 0.67-0.71

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • SPADI pain – Pearson r = 0.79, Spearman r = 0.76
  • SPADI function – Pearson r = 0.85, Spearman r = 0.83

Adhesive Capsulitis:

(Staples M.P., Forbes A., Green S., Buchbinder R., 2010)

  • SPADI – r = 0.55
  • Croft Index – r = 0.65
  • Visual Analog Scale – r = 0.31
  • Health Assessment Questionnaire – r = 0.54

Shoulder Arthroplasty (Switzerland, German-language):

(Angst F., Pap G., Mannion A.F., et al., 2004; n = 43)

  • SF-36 (PCS) – r = 0.67
  • SF-36 (MCS) – r = 0.06
  • SPADI – r = 0.93
  • pASES – r = 0.79
  • cASES – r = 0.59
  • Constant Shoulder – r = 0.82

Discriminative Validity:

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • Participants who were working with their upper limb condition and were able to continue to work had a significantly lower disability than those unable to work (26.8 vs. 50.7, t=-7.51, p<0.0001).
  • Similarly, the DASH was able to discriminate between those who could do everything they wanted to vs. those who could not (23.6 vs. 47.1, t=-5.81, p<0.0001).

Content Validity

Not Established

Face Validity

Not Established

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Elbow Disorders
(Angst et al, 2005, Elbow Disorders)
 
DASH Floor and Ceiling Effects:

n

Minimum
Maximum
Floor, %
Ceiling, % 
DASH symptoms

79

12.5
100.0
0
6
DASH function

77

4.3
100.0
0
3
DASH

77

15.0
100.0
0
1

Intercollegiate Athletes:

(Hsu et al, 2010, Intercollegiate Athletes)

N

Minimum

Maximum

Floor %

Ceiling %

DASH

321

0

100

0

65.11

Proximal Humeral Fractures:

(Slobogean et al, 2010; n = 61, mean age = 69, Proximal Humeral Fractures)

  • No Floor effect established
  • Moderate: 7% ceiling effect
Rheumatoid Arthritis:
 
(Raven E.E.J., Haverkamp D., Siervelt I.N., et al., 2008)
  • Floor effect: none
  • Ceiling effect: none

Adults with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems:

(Beaton D.E., Katz J.N., Fossel A.H., Wright J.G., Tarasuk V., Bombardier C., 2001)

  • Floor effect: none
  • Ceiling effect: only 1 of 200 in the sample scored 0 points

Responsiveness

Neck Pain:

(Huisstede et al., 2009; n = 679; 41.0 (23.0), Neck Pain)

  • DASH was considered acceptable for each (sub)group
  • The responsiveness ratio was higher in the S-A-H–only group (1.92) than in the N–only group (1.38)

 
Responsiveness Ratio
S-A-H Improved
2.01
S-A-H Stable
N-S-A-H Improved
1.91
N-S-A-H Stable
N-S Improved
2.04

N-S Stable

N Improved
1.85
N Stable
S-A-H Only Improved
1.92
S-A-H Only Stable
N-Only Improved
1.38
N-Only Stable

 

Total Elbow Arthroplasty:

 (Angst et al, 2012; n = 65; 61.9 (13.0), Total elbow Arthroplasty)

·         Effect Size = 0.56, Sensitivity = 0.59, Specificity = 0.71

 

Wrist Disorders

(Imaeda et al, 2010; n = 117; Japanese Version, adapted by the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand, Wrist Disorders)
 
Standardized Response Means and Effect Size of PRWE and DASH
 

Total

Radius Fracture

Instrument Scale
No.
SRM
Effect Size
No.
SRM
Effect Size
DASH
50***
1.30
1.20
24***
2.13
2.05
PRWE
50***
1.55
1.92
24***
1.90
3.32
VAS
49***
1.75
2.23
24***
2.00
2.96
SRM, Standardized Response Means
PRWE, Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation
VAS, Visual Analogue Scale
***Significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative median values (p < 0.001)
 

Professional Association Recommendations

Recommendations have not been made

Considerations

  • A shortform is also available (QuickDASH)
  • The DASH has been translated in 27 languages
Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Bibliography

Alberta, F. G., ElAttrache, N. S., et al. (2010). "The development and validation of a functional assessment tool for the upper extremity in the overhead athlete." Am J Sports Med 38(5): 903-911. Find it on PubMed

 Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., et al. (2012). "Responsiveness of five outcome measurement instruments in total elbow arthroplasty." Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64(11): 1749-1755. Find it on PubMed

Angst, F., John, M., et al. (2005). "Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty." Arthritis Rheum 53(1): 73-82. Find it on PubMed

Chiari-Grisar, C., Koller, U., et al. (2006). "Performance of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome questionnaire and the Moberg picking up test in patients with finger joint arthroplasty." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(2): 203-206. Find it on PubMed

Dupeyron, A., Gelis, A., et al. (2010). "Heterogeneous assessment of shoulder disorders: validation of the Standardized Index of Shoulder Function." J Rehabil Med 42(10): 967-972. Find it on PubMed

Gummesson, C., Atroshi, I., et al. (2003). "The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery." BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4(11): 11. Find it on PubMed

Hsu, J. E., Nacke, E., et al. (2010). "The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(3): 349-354. Find it on PubMed

Huisstede, B. M., Feleus, A., et al. (2009). "Is the disability of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) also valid and responsive in patients with neck complaints." Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4): E130-138. Find it on PubMed 

Imaeda, T., Uchiyama, S., et al. (2010). "Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation." J Orthop Sci 15(4): 509-517. Find it on PubMed

MacDermid, J. C., Wessel, J., et al. (2007). "Validity of self-report measures of pain and disability for persons who have undergone arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the hand." Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(5): 524-530. Find it on PubMed

Mehta, S., Macdermid, J. C., et al. (2010). "Concurrent validation of the DASH and the QuickDASH in comparison to neck-specific scales in patients with neck pain." Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(24): 2150-2156. Find it on PubMed 

Slobogean, G. P., Noonan, V. K., et al. (2010). "The reliability and validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, EuroQol-5D, Health Utilities Index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(3): 342-348. Find it on PubMed

Vermeulen, G. M., Brink, S. M., et al. (2009). "Ligament reconstruction arthroplasty for primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (weilby technique): prospective cohort study." J Hand Surg Am 34(8): 1393-1401. Find it on PubMed

Year published

1996 

Instrument in PDF Format

Yes 
Approval Status Approved 
 
Attachments
Created at 3/22/2012 5:36 PM  by Jason Raad 
Last modified at 2/16/2016 8:43 AM  by Jason Raad