Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25863045›Full record

ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2015

The reliability and validity of the English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire for people with rheumatoid arthritis.

Alison Hammond, Alan Tennant, Sarah F Tyson, Ulla Nordenskiöld, Ruth Hawkins, Yeliz Prior

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05244824 (Adaptation of Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05244824 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Adaptation of Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) Into Turkish, Examining The Reliability and Validity For People With Rheumatoid Arthritis

TypeobservationalSponsorHacettepe UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled210ConditionsArthritis, Rheumatoid, Activities of Daily LivingArmsAdaptation into Turkish, Examining The Reliability and Validity for People with RA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Supporting construct validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire using Linear Logistic Test Models.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A principal factor analysis to characterize agricultural exposures among Nebraska veterans.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alison HammondCentre for Health Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, a.hammond@salford.ac.uk hammond116@btinternet.com.
Alan TennantAcademic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Section of Musculoskeletal Disease, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Leeds, Leeds.
Sarah F TysonStroke & Vascular Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Ulla NordenskiöldInstitute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg University, Sweden and.
Ruth HawkinsNational Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Derby, UK.
Yeliz PriorCentre for Health Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) includes 138 items in 14 domains identified as important by people with RA. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the English EDAQ.

methodsA total of 502 participants completed two questionnaires 3 weeks apart. The first consisted of the EDAQ, HAQ, RA Quality of Life (RAQoL) and the Medical Outcomes Scale (MOS) 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36v2), and the second consisted of the EDAQ only. The 14 EDAQ domains were tested for: unidimensionality-using confirmatory factor analysis; fit, response dependency, invariance across groups (differential item functioning)-using Rasch analysis; internal consistency [Person Separation Index (PSI)]; concurrent validity-by correlations with the HAQ, SF-36v2 and RAQoL; and test-retest reliability (Spearman's correlations).

resultsConfirmatory factor analysis of the 14 EDAQ domains indicated unidimensionality, after adjustment for local dependency in each domain. All domains achieved a root mean square error of approximation <0.10 and satisfied Rasch model expectations for local dependency. DIF by age, gender and employment status was largely absent. The PSI was consistent with individual use (PSI = 0.94 for all 14 domains). For all domains, except Caring, concurrent validity was good: HAQ (rs = 0.72-0.91), RAQoL (rs = 0.67-0.82) and SF36v2 Physical Function scale (rs = -0.60 to -0.84) and test-retest reliability was good (rs = 0.70-0.89).

conclusionAnalysis supported a 14-domain, two-component structure (Self care and Mobility) of the EDAQ, where each domain, and both components, satisfied Rasch model requirements, and have robust reliability and validity.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingDisability EvaluationLanguageAgedArthritis, RheumatoidFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomactivities of daily livingoutcome researchRasch analysisrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID25863045
PMCPMC4536856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.