The psychometric properties of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in seven musculoskeletal conditions

References

• European Commission. Special Eurobarometer: Health in the European Union Report; 2007 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_272e_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons S, Ingram M, Clarke-Cornwell AM, et al. A Heavy Burden: the occurrence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions in the United Kingdom today. Arthritis Research UK; 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. http://www.arthritisresearchuk.org/external-resources/2012/09/17/15/12/heavy-burden-the-occurrence-and-impact-of-musculoskeletal-conditions-in-the-united-kingdom-today.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Kirwan JR, Reeback JS. Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire modified to assess disability in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1986;25:206–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ, et al. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthr Rheum. 1992;35:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond A. Functional and health assessments used in rheumatology occupational therapy: a review and United Kingdom survey. Br J Occup Ther. 1996;59:254–259.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Tyson S, Prior Y, et al. Linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of an English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordenskiöld U, Grimby G, Hedberg M, et al. The structure of an instrument for assessing the effect of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthr Care Res. 1996;9:21–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordenskiöld U, Grimby G, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1998;17:6–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, et al. The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire: Part 1 and 2 (English) v. 1.2. University of Salford 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. Available at http://usir.salford.ac.uk/30755/.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, et al. The Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire: User Manual v2 (English). University of Salford; 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. Available at http://usir.salford.ac.uk/30752/.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Tennant A, Tyson S, et al. The Reliability and Validity of the English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2015;54:1605–1615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederlund R, Nordenskiöld U, Lundborg G. Hand-arm vibration exposure influences performance of daily activities. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:570–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederlund R, Iwarsson S, Lundborg G. Quality of life in Swedish workers exposed to hand-arm vibration syndrome. Occup Ther Int. 2007;14:156–169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sandqvist G, Eklund MA, Akesson A, et al. Daily activities and hand function in women with scleroderma. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:102–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Prior Y, Tennant A, et al. The content validity and acceptability of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire in musculoskeletal conditions. Br J Occ Ther. 2015;78:144–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European League Against Rheumatism Outcome Measures Library [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available at http://oml.eular.org/index.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–3139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White DK, Wilson JC, Keysor JJ. Measures of adult general functional status. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:S297–S307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quality Metric Incorporated Solutions. QualityMetric Health Outcomes™ Scoring Software 4.5. Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric, Incorporated; 2010 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. Now Optum Insight Life Sciences Inc. Available at https://www.optum.com/optum-outcomes/what-we-do/health-surveys/sf-36v2-health-survey.html.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Hillman M, Fear J, et al. Are we making the most of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire?. Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35:574–578.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): analyses in 2491 Rheumatoid Arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:982–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Statist Med. 2000;19:1651–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago (IL): University Chicago Press.1960.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafson JE. Testing and obtaining fit of data to the Rasch model. Brit J Math Stat Psy 1980; 33:205–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch Measurement Model in Rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57:1358–1362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3:205–231.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marais I, Andrich D. Formalising dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. J Appl Meas. 2008;9:200–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masters G. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Sheridan BED, Luo G. RUMM2030: Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Kiely G. Item clusters and computer adaptive testing: a case for testlets. J Educational Measurement. 1987;24:185–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer GH, Molenaar IW, editors. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer. 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Van Newby A, Conner GR, Bunderson CV. The Rasch model and additive conjoint measurement. J Appl Meas. 2009;10:348–354.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG. (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Cichetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardised assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assessment. 1994;6:284–290.
   Google Scholar
• Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Donoghue D. PROP Group and Stokes E. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:343–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdogan BD, Leung YY, Pohl C, et al. Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch working group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol. 2016;43:194–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:NHS R&D HTA Programme [cited 2016 Sep 26]. http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/volume-2/issue-14.
   Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 20.0. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp. Released 2011.
   Google Scholar
• MedCalc for Windows, Version 16.2.1 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium); 2016.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims; 2009 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Checklist manual v1; 2012 [cited 2016 Sep 26]. http://www.cosmin.nl/cosmin_checklist.html.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond A. 2016, Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) client information leaflet v1, University of Salford [cited 2016 Sep 26]. Available at http://usir.salford.ac.uk/39447/.
   Google Scholar