Test–retest reliability and responsiveness of a French Canadian Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI-FC)

References

• Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2163–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks P. The burden of musculoskeletal disease—a global perspective. Clin Rheumatol 2006;25:778–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission de la santé et de la sécurié du travail. Statistiques annuelles 2009. Québec, Canada: Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec 2010
   Google Scholar
• Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec. Portrait national des troubles musculosquelettiques (TMS) 1998–2007: TMS sous surveillance [Internet]. Quebec, Canada: Institut national de santé publique du Québec; 2010. Available from: http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/1156_TMS1998–2007SousSurveillance.pdf [last accessed 19 Dec 2013]
   Google Scholar
• American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. Prevalence, societal and economic cost [Internet]. Rosemont (IL): American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2008
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work by selected worker and case characteristics and musculoskeletal disorders. All United States, private industry, 2004 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. Statistiques annuelles 2012 [Internet]. Quebec; 2013. Available from: http://www.csst.qc.ca/publications/200/Documents/DC200_1046web.pdf [last accessed 19 Dec 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Institut National de Recherche, de Securité. Les troubles musculo-squelettique du membre supérieur (TMS-MS) Guide pour les préventeurs [Internet]. Paris, France: Institut National de Recherche et de Securité; 2011
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The burden of MS conditions at the start of the new millennium. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Hamasaki T, Demers L, Filiatrault J, Aubin G. A cross-cultural adaptation of the Upper Limb Functional Index in French Canadian. J Hand Ther 2014;27:247–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman LA, Sindhu BS, Shechtman O, et al. A comparison of the ability of two upper extremity assessments to measure change in function. J Hand Ther 2010;23:31–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel CP, Michener LA, Burkett B, Neller A. The Upper Limb Functional Index: development and determination of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Hand Ther 2006;19:328–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel CP, Michener LA, Melloh M, Burkett B. Modification of the Upper Limb Functional Index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. J Hand Ther 2010;23:41–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan J, Spencer J. Adaptation to hand injury: an evolving experience. Am J Occup Ther 2004;58:128–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah SD. Psychosocial issues after a traumatic hand injury: facilitating adjustment. J Hand Ther 2011;24:95–103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harth A, Germann G, Jester A. Evaluating the effectiveness of a patient-oriented hand rehabilitation programme. J Hand Surg Eur 2008;33:771–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermid JC. ASHT president’s lecture: making decisions using values, experience, and evidence. J Hand Ther 2010;23:92–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, et al. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2012;12:921–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houweling TA. Reporting improvement of patient-reported outcome measures: a review. Cli Chiropractic 2010;13:15–22
   Google Scholar
• Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther 2009;17:163–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2270–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, et al. Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg Am 2000;25:330–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 2005;30:1331–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan CR, Binhammer PA. Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery. Hand (NY) 2009;4:311–18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Halloran J, Miller GC, Britt H. Defining chronic conditions for primary care with ICPC-2. Fam Pract 2004;21:381–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1204–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Brinkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995;47:258–263
   Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durand MJ, Vachon B, Hong QN, Loisel P. The cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH questionnaire in Canadian French. J Hand Ther 2005;18:34–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika 1965;52:591–611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razali NM, Wah YB. Power comparisons of Shapiro–Wilk, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson–Daring tests. J Stat Model Analytics 2011;2:21–33
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:212–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL. Reliability. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, eds. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:168–211
   Google Scholar
• Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Stratford DM. Development and initial validation of Upper Extremity Functional Index. Physiother Can 2001;53:259–67
   Google Scholar
• Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland–Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 1996;76:359–65; discussion 366–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4:293–307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman LA, Velozo CA. Ability to detect change in patient function: responsiveness designs and methods of calculation. J Hand Ther 2010;23:361–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton D, Katz J, Fossel A, et al. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001;14:128–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eyssen IC, Beelen A, Dedding C, et al. The reproducibility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:888–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos GA, et al. Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1524–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolles BM, Buchbinder R, Beaton DE. A study compared nine patient-specific indices for musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:791–801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelly C, Carswell A. Individualized outcome measures: a review of the literature. Can J Occup Ther 2002;69:84–94
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowling A. Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:342–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:619–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong JY, Fung BK, Chu MM, Chan RK. The use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire in rehabilitation after acute traumatic hand injuries. J Hand Ther 2007;20:49–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pransky G, Feuerstein M, Himmelstein J, et al. Measuring functional outcomes in work-related upper extremity disorders. Development and validation of the Upper Extremity Function Scale. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39:1195–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar