Jump to content

DASH Outcome Measure

Original Editor - Nicole Wente as part of the Temple University EBP Project Top Contributors - Nicole Wente, Admin, Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Rachael Lowe, Abbey Wright, Kim Jackson, Laura Ritchie, Scott A Burns, Vidya Acharya, Rucha Gadgil, Lauren Lopez, Evan Thomas, Scott Buxton, WikiSysop, Claire Knott, Tony Lowe, Jess Bell, Robin Tacchetti and Alexandra Stead

Objective

The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire is a 30-item self-report questionnaire developed jointly by the Institute for Work and Health (IWH) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), first published in 1996.[1][2][3] It was designed to evaluate a patient's ability to perform a range of upper extremity activities, with each item rated on a 5-point Likert scale reflecting both difficulty and the extent to which symptoms interfere with daily life.[1][2] The DASH has been translated and cross-culturally adapted into more than 50 languages and dialects, and has demonstrated sound validity and reliability across a wide range of upper extremity disorders.[4][5]

QuickDASH Outcome Measure

The QuickDASH is a shortened derivative of the original DASH outcome measure, developed to reduce respondent burden while retaining psychometric rigour.[6] In contrast to the 30-item DASH, the QuickDASH contains 11 items and uses the same 5-point Likert scale, from which the patient selects a response corresponding to their level of function or symptom severity.[6][7] It measures physical function and symptoms in people with any or multiple musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb.[6] A further shortened variant, the QuickDASH-9, has also been described in the literature.[8]

Intended Population

Both measures are designed for use across a broad range of upper extremity conditions, with the following intended populations:

  • The DASH outcome measure is intended for use with any person presenting with one or more upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.[1][2][3]
  • The QuickDASH outcome measure is designed for use with patients presenting with one or more disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand.[6][7]

Method of Use

Patients are asked to rate their ability to perform the following tasks on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates no difficulty and 5 indicates inability to perform the task. Some of the tasks as listed below:

"Place an object on a shelf above your head"

"Use a knife to cut food"

"Wash your back"

The latter section of the questionnaire addresses symptom severity and the impact of the condition on work and sporting or performing arts activities, using a comparable rating format.

Scoring

DASH and QuickDASH Scoring Formula = ([(sum of n responses) / n] - 1)(25), where n represents the number of completed items.[1]

The DASH cannot be scored if more than three items are missing.[1]

The QuickDASH cannot be scored if more than one item is missing.[1]

Level of Disability

In both the DASH and QuickDASH, higher scores indicate a greater level of disability and symptom severity, while lower scores reflect less disability.[1][3] Scores on both measures range from 0, representing no disability, to 100, representing the most severe level of disability.[6]

Additional Optional Modules

The DASH and QuickDASH each have two optional 4-item modules that may be used alongside the main questionnaire where relevant. The two optional modules are as follows: [1]

  • A Work module, which is intended for use with patients in workers' compensation cases or those whose condition is affecting their capacity to work; and
  • A Sports/Performing Arts module, intended for use with athletes and musicians. Both optional modules use the same scoring formula as the main questionnaire and are scored separately. The optional modules cannot be scored if any item within them is left unanswered.

Evidence

Reliability

The DASH has demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability across multiple patient populations. A 2024 study examining psychometric properties of the DASH in patients with frozen shoulder reported an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.999 (95% CI: 0.998–1.000) alongside a high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.951, a standard error of measurement of 0.5 points, and a minimal detectable change of 1.5 points.[9] Earlier work by Beaton et al. reported an ICC(Absolute agreement, two-way random effects, and a single-rater (2,1)) of 0.96 across various upper extremity disorders.[2]

The QuickDASH similarly demonstrates strong test-retest reliability. A 2025 study examining the QuickDASH in patients with neck pain reported an ICC of 0.98 with a standard error of measurement of 3.17 and a minimal detectable change of 8.79, alongside excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.945.[10] Mintken et al. previously reported an ICC(2,1) of 0.90 in patients with shoulder pain.[11]

Validity

The DASH has demonstrated satisfactory construct validity across a range of upper extremity conditions. Brindisino et al. reported that 80% of a priori construct validity hypotheses were met in a frozen shoulder population, with the DASH correlating meaningfully with the Numeric pain rating scale, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36).[9] Another study reported a Pearson correlation coefficient of r > 0.70 with related upper extremity outcome measures.[2]

The QuickDASH has shown good concurrent validity with respect to the full DASH. A 2024 study examining patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation confirmed strong concurrent validity between the two versions using Pearson's correlations and Bland-Altman analysis.[12] In a study population of paediatric patients with upper extremity fractures, acceptable construct validity with good convergent validity and an acceptable Cronbach's alpha of 0.75. were reported[13]. Also, Beaton et al. reported a Pearson r > 0.70 with related upper extremity measures.[14]

Responsiveness

The DASH has demonstrated good responsiveness across a range of upper extremity conditions. Alnahdi[15] examined the responsiveness of the DASH in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and reported a large effect size (ES = 1.53, standardised response mean = 1.42) in patients who improved, with all six a priori hypotheses supported in line with Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The study further established a minimal important change of 14.22 to 14.85 points using receiver operating characteristic and predictive modelling methods.[15]

The QuickDASH has similarly demonstrated sufficient responsiveness. A study assessed responsiveness of the QuickDASH in 88 patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders, reporting a large effect size (ES = 1.61, standardised response mean = 1.49) in patients who showed improvement, with 100% of pre-defined hypotheses supported.[16] The QuickDASH change scores were significantly correlated with changes in the Global assessment of function (r = 0.67), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (r = 0.72), and Global Rating of Change Scale (r = 0.78).[16]

Miscellaneous

Psychometric Property DASH QuickDASH
Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) 12.75% - 17.23%[3] 11.2%[11]
Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) 10.83 - 15[17] 15.91 - 20[18]
Miscellaneous Available in more than 50 languages, many of which have undergone or are in the process of psychometric evaluation.[4] The QuickDASH has demonstrated greater relative efficiency compared with the full DASH.[14] Studies have also examined the reliability of a modified visual analogue version of the QuickDASH.[17][7]

MDC is the smallest amount of change that must occur before a change can be considered a true change rather than measurement error.[3] While, the MCID is the amount of change in score that must occur before it is considered to represent a clinically important or beneficial difference in the patient's condition.[11]

Note: MCID values for both the DASH and QuickDASH vary according to the population and methodology used. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis provides updated, population-specific MCID data and should be consulted alongside the reference values above.[19]

Links

Online version of DASH

Online version of QuickDASH

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 The DASH outcome measure. Available at https://dash.iwh.on.ca/ Accessed May 20, 2026.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. 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. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2001 Apr 1;14(2):128-42.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Beaton DE, Davis AM, Hudak P, McConnell S. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure: what do we know about it now?. The British Journal of Hand Therapy. 2001 Dec;6(4):109-18..
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 de Klerk S. Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review. Hand Ther. 2023;28(1):3-15. doi: 10.1177/17589983221140433.
  5. ↑ Sigirtmac IC, Oksuz C. Systematic review of the quality of the cross-cultural adaptations of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). La Medicina del Lavoro. 2021;112(4):279.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (Quick DASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2006 Dec 1;7(1):44.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Matheson LN, Melhorn JM, Mayer TG, Theodore BR, Gatchel RJ. Reliability of a visual analog version of the QuickDASH. JBJS. 2006 Aug 1;88(8):1782-7.
  8. ↑ Gabel CP, Yelland M, Melloh M, Burkett B. A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009 Dec 18;10:161. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-161.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Brindisino F, Venturin D, Bartoli M, Caselli S, Pellicciari L, Poser A. Psychometric properties of the Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) in subjects with frozen shoulder: a reliability and validity study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25(1):260. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07371-8.
  10. ↑ Lue YJ, Cheng KI, Lin CL, Chen CH, Lu YM. Psychometric Properties of the QuickDASH in Patients with Neck Pain. J Clin Med. 2025;14(4):1266. doi: 10.3390/jcm14041266.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):920-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015.
  12. ↑ Pyörny J, Sletten IN, Jokihaara J. Concurrent validity study of QuickDASH with respect to DASH in patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07183-w.
  13. ↑ Kämppä N, Hulkkonen S, Grahn P, Laaksonen T, Repo J. The construct validity and internal consistency of QuickDASH in pediatric patients with upper extremity fractures. Acta Orthop. 2024;95:192-199. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.40181.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN; Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):1038-46. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02060.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Alnahdi AH. Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the Arabic Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) in Patients with Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(19):2623. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11192623.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Aldaihan MM, Alnahdi AH. Responsiveness of the Arabic Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in Patients with Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(18):2507. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11182507.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Lu YM, Wu YY, Lue YJ. Rasch Analysis of the QuickDASH in Patients with Neck Pain. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(6): 1870. doi:10.3390/jcm14061870
  18. ↑ Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Bravini E, Ferriero G. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(1):30-9. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4893.
  19. ↑ Galardini L, Coppari A, Pellicciari L, Ugolini A, Piscitelli D, La Porta F, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther. 2024;104(5):pzae033. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzae033.
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/w/index.php?title=DASH_Outcome_Measure&oldid=380192"