ArticleHand therapy2023
Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review.
Article in Hand therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do existing HRSN assessment tools assess social needs for older adults? A systematic review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Concomitant capitellum fractures in patients with radial head fractures: incidence, risk factors and primary outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of Bengali Language Shoulder Pain and Disability Index Version on Patients With Frozen Shoulder at a Rehabilitation Centre in Bangladesh: A Validation Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Disability Self-Assessment Questionnaire: Criterion Validity, Construct Validity, and Internal Consistency.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Methods: The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria. Results: The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity. Conclusion: The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.