Concurrent Validation of the DASH and the QuickDASH in Comparison to Neck-Specific Scales in Patients With Neck Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent validity study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and the QuickDASH in patients with neck pain in comparison with the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire (CSOQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. To examine the agreement between the DASH and the QuickDASH and assess whether the QuickDASH can be used instead of full DASH in patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NDI is commonly used for measuring neck-related disability in patients with neck pain; but it does not offer to assess the potential for upper extremity disability. METHODS: Patients with neck pain (N = 66) were assessed on one occasion. They completed the NDI and the DASH, and 42 of them completed the CSOQ. The QuickDASH scores were extracted from the full DASH. Correlations were tested between both versions of the DASH, the NDI, the subscales of the CSOQ, and the VAS-pain. Correlations were considered high with r >0.75. Ranked item difficulty analysis was performed for both versions of the DASH and the NDI. The Bland and Altman technique was used to assess the nature and size of score differences between 2 versions of the DASH. RESULTS: Item ranks identified the DASH and the QuickDASH items to be as problematic to patients as NDI items. Both the versions of DASH showed high correlation (0.82-0.83) with the NDI and moderate correlation with the CSOQ and VAS-pain. The mean QuickDASH scores were higher (2.77 points) compared to the full DASH. CONCLUSION: Though the QuickDASH reported higher disability compared to the full DASH in this patient group, high correlation between the QuickDASH and the NDI and agreement between both versions of the DASH provide preliminary evidence that the QuickDASH can be used to measure upper extremity disability in patients with neck pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".