Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Objective & Intended Population == | == Objective & Intended Population == | ||
The questionnaire was developed as a tool to evaluate the health state in various domains that are experienced by patients with hand disorders as a standardised instrument.<ref name=":1"/> Its strength lies in the detection and measuring of the patients' ''symptoms'', ''function'', ''aesthetics'', and ''satisfaction of the hand function'' of conditions and diseases of the hand and the upper extremity. <ref name=":2">Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):779e-87e. </ref> It was designed as an assessment that reflect the subjective impression of the hand function.<ref name=":2"/> The authors intended to focus on the domains that were important to the patients which are mainly function and overall well-being/quality of life, which were hard to quantify with usual measurements. <ref name=":1"/> | The questionnaire was developed as a tool to evaluate the health state in various domains that are experienced by patients with hand disorders as a standardised instrument.<ref name=":1"/> Its strength lies in the detection and measuring of the patients' ''symptoms'', ''function'', ''aesthetics'', and ''satisfaction of the hand function'' of conditions and diseases of the hand and the upper extremity. <ref name=":2">Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):779e-87e. </ref> It was designed as an assessment that reflect the subjective impression of the hand function.<ref name=":2"/> The authors intended to focus on the domains that were important to the patients which are mainly function and overall well-being/quality of life, which were hard to quantify with usual measurements. <ref name=":1"/> The assessment is used most frequently on patients suffering from arthritis or trauma to the upper extremity. <ref name=":2"/> | ||
== Method of Use == | == Method of Use == | ||
The MHQ was designed as a patient-rated questionnaire, which means the patients evaluate their health state themselves. It was developed using the psychometric principles for psychological assessments (Reliability, Validity, Standardisation, and Freedom from bias). The questionnaire consists of 37 items that can be grouped into six main categories (see Figure 1). | The MHQ was designed as a patient-rated questionnaire, which means the patients evaluate their health state themselves. It was developed using the psychometric principles for psychological assessments (Reliability, Validity, Standardisation, and Freedom from bias). The questionnaire consists of 37 items that can be grouped into six main categories (see Figure 1).<ref name=":1"/> | ||
Special to this assessment is the inclusion of items about ''aesthetics'', which is often regarded as very important by patients, and the separate evaluation of the left and the right side. <ref name=":2"/> | |||
== Reference == | == Reference == | ||
== Evidence == | == Evidence == | ||
In 2013, Shauver and Chung reviewed the published evidence on the MHQ | In 2013, Shauver and Chung reviewed the published evidence on the MHQ in the 15 years since release of the first version of the assessment. The study identified 18 published papers concerning the psychometric properties and 58 clinical research papers utilising the assessment through a systematic literature review. <ref name=":2"/> | ||
=== Reliability === | === Reliability === | ||
Original paper | |||
Test - re-test reliability (repeatability) | |||
Internal consistency | |||
Review | |||
=== Validity === | === Validity === | ||
Original paper | |||
Content validity | |||
Criterion validity | |||
Construct validity | |||
Review | |||
=== Responsiveness === | === Responsiveness === | ||
Original paper | |||
Review | |||
=== Miscellaneous<span style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;" class="Apple-style-span"></span> === | === Miscellaneous<span style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;" class="Apple-style-span"></span> === | ||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
An online version of the assessment can be found on the following link: [https://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/Michigan_Hand_Outcome_Questionnaire.html | Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire] | An online version of the assessment can be found on the following link: [https://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/Michigan_Hand_Outcome_Questionnaire.html| Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire] | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 14:08, 13 October 2020
Original Editor - User Name
Top Contributors - Anna Fuhrmann, Kim Jackson and Shaimaa Eldib
Overview[edit | edit source]
The Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) was developed in 1998 by the hand surgeon Chung and his colleagues Pillsbury, Walters and Hayward.[1] The assessment was devised by hand surgeons, hand therapists and hand clinic patients and has been reviewed in multiple studies over the course of the last two decades.
Objective & Intended Population[edit | edit source]
The questionnaire was developed as a tool to evaluate the health state in various domains that are experienced by patients with hand disorders as a standardised instrument.[1] Its strength lies in the detection and measuring of the patients' symptoms, function, aesthetics, and satisfaction of the hand function of conditions and diseases of the hand and the upper extremity. [2] It was designed as an assessment that reflect the subjective impression of the hand function.[2] The authors intended to focus on the domains that were important to the patients which are mainly function and overall well-being/quality of life, which were hard to quantify with usual measurements. [1] The assessment is used most frequently on patients suffering from arthritis or trauma to the upper extremity. [2]
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
The MHQ was designed as a patient-rated questionnaire, which means the patients evaluate their health state themselves. It was developed using the psychometric principles for psychological assessments (Reliability, Validity, Standardisation, and Freedom from bias). The questionnaire consists of 37 items that can be grouped into six main categories (see Figure 1).[1] Special to this assessment is the inclusion of items about aesthetics, which is often regarded as very important by patients, and the separate evaluation of the left and the right side. [2]
Reference[edit | edit source]
Evidence[edit | edit source]
In 2013, Shauver and Chung reviewed the published evidence on the MHQ in the 15 years since release of the first version of the assessment. The study identified 18 published papers concerning the psychometric properties and 58 clinical research papers utilising the assessment through a systematic literature review. [2]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
Original paper Test - re-test reliability (repeatability) Internal consistency Review
Validity[edit | edit source]
Original paper Content validity Criterion validity Construct validity Review
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
Original paper
Review
Miscellaneous[edit | edit source]
Links[edit | edit source]
An online version of the assessment can be found on the following link: Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(4):575-87.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):779e-87e.
