Measuring limitations in activities of daily living: a population-based validation of a short questionnaire

References

• World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Elfering A, Mannion AF. Epidemiology and risk factors of spinal disorders. In: Boos N, Aebi M, editors. Spinal disorders – fundamentals of diagnosis and treatment. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 153–173.
   Google Scholar
• Elfering A, Arnold S, Schade V, et al. Stochastic resonance whole-body vibration, musculoskeletal symptoms and body balance: a worksite training study. Saf Health Work. 2013;4:149–155. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2013.07.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vernon H, Lawson G. Development of the headache activities of daily living index: initial validity study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015;38:102–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedny GZ, Karwowski W. Activity theory as a basis for the study of work. Ergonomics. 2004;47:134–153. doi: 10.1080/00140130310001617921
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström Y. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R, editors. Perspectives on activity theory. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Sokka T, Häkkinen A, Krishnan E, et al. Similar prediction of mortality by the health assessment questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and the general population. An Rheum Dis. 2004;63:494–497. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.009530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callahan LF, Pincus T. A clue from a self-report questionnaire to distinguish rheumatoid arthritis from noninflammatory diffuse musculoskeletal pain. Arth Rheum. 1990;33:1317–1322. doi:doi: 10.1002/art.1780330903
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Research Council (US) Committee on National Statistics; National Research Council (US) Committee on Population. Improving the measurement of late-life disability in population surveys: beyond ADLs and IADLs, summary of a workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2009. Chapter 1: Introduction. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28480/
   Google Scholar
• Melloh M, Elfering A, Stanton TR, et al. Low back pain risk factors associated with persistence, recurrence, and delayed presentation. J Back Muscul Rehab. 2014;27:281–289. doi:doi: 10.3233/BMR-130445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamcan O, Mannion AF, Eisenring C, et al. The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population. Pain. 2010;150:451–457. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.05.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieser S, Horisberger B, Schmidhauser S, et al. Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:455–467. doi:doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0258-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheum. 1988;15:1833–1840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1969;51:737–755. doi: 10.2106/00004623-196951040-00012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liow RYL, Walker K, Wajid MA, et al. The reliability of the American Knee Society score. Acta Ortho Scand. 2000;71:603–608. doi:doi: 10.1080/000164700317362244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Aubigne RM, Postel M. Function as results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1954;36-A:451–475. doi:doi: 10.2106/00004623-195436030-00001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:141–144. doi:doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, et al. The North American Spine Society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:741–748. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199603150-00017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17:36–41. doi:doi: 10.1097/00007632-199201000-00006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Germann G, Wind G, Harth A. Der DASH-Fragebogen – Ein neues Instrument zur Beurteilung von Behandlungsergebnissen an der oberen Extremität [The DASH (Disability of Arm–Shoulder–Hand) questionnaire – a new instrument for evaluating upper extremity treatment outcome]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 1999;31:149–152. German. doi:doi: 10.1055/s-1999-13902
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, et al. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arth Care Res. 1991;4:143–149. doi:doi: 10.1002/art.1790040403
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orth Rel Res. 1987;214:160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay SP, Amstutz HC. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty at UCLA. Clin Ortho Rel Res. 1988;228:42–48.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon CT, Nichols JS. The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Pub Opinion Quart. 1983;47:270–276. doi:doi: 10.1086/268785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller U, Tanzler K, Burger A, et al. A pain assessment scale for population-based studies: development and validation of the pain module of the standard evaluation questionnaire. Pain. 2008;136:62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.06.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Robbins JA, et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagiain adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15:122–133. doi:doi: 10.1007/s004550010013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle GJ. Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Pers Ind Diff. 1991;12:291–294. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90115-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton JM, Sinar EF, Balzer WK, et al. Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Pers Psychol. 2002;55:167–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Veenhof C, Bijlsma JWJ, van den Ende CHM, et al. Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Arth Rheum. 2006;55:480–492. doi:doi: 10.1002/art.22001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–374. doi:doi: 10.2307/2529786
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, et al. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18:979–992. doi:doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(96)80054-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbuckle JL, Wothke W. Amos 40 user’s guide. Chicago (IL): Small Waters; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Elfering A. Work-related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:S32–S43. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1047-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, et al. A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. J Bus Res. 2005;58:935–943. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurostat Yearbook. The statistical guide to Europe. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Elfering A, Grebner S, Gerber H, et al. Workplace observation of work stressors, catecholamines and musculoskeletal pain among male employees. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34:337–344. doi:doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elfering A, Grebner S, Semmer NK, et al. Time control, catecholamines and back pain among young nurses. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002;28:386–393. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pincus T, Hassett AL, Callahan LF. Clues on the MDHAQ to identify patients with fibromyalgia and similar chronic pain conditions. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2009;35:865–869. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2009.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angus VC, Entwistle VA, Emslie MJ, et al. The requirement for prior consent to participate on survey response rates: a population-based survey in Grampian. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003;3:39. doi:doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-3-21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1129–1136. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, et al. Maximising response to postal questionnaires – a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:1183. doi:doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-5
   Google Scholar