Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Top Contributors''' - {{Special:Contributors/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} | '''Top Contributors''' - {{Special:Contributors/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} | ||
</div> | </div>[[File:Domains of Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire.png|617x617px|Figure 1: The Domains of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire |thumb]] | ||
== Overview== | == Overview== | ||
The [https://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/Michigan_Hand_Outcome_Questionnaire.html|Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire] (MHQ) was developed in 1998 by the [[Wrist and Hand|hand]] surgeon [https://www.uofmhealth.org/profile/77/kevin-chi-chung-md| Chung] and his colleagues Pillsbury, Walters, Hayward, and Arbor.<ref name=":1">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. </ref> The process of devising the assessment was accompanied by hand therapists and hand clinic patients and has been reviewed in multiple studies over the course of the last two decades. | The [https://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/Michigan_Hand_Outcome_Questionnaire.html|Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire] (MHQ) was developed in 1998 by the [[Wrist and Hand|hand]] surgeon [https://www.uofmhealth.org/profile/77/kevin-chi-chung-md| Chung] and his colleagues Pillsbury, Walters, Hayward, and Arbor.<ref name=":1">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. </ref> The process of devising the assessment was accompanied by hand therapists and hand clinic patients and has been reviewed in multiple studies over the course of the last two decades. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
== Method of Use == | == Method of Use == | ||
The MHQ is a patient-rated questionnaire, which means the patients evaluate their health state themselves. It was developed using the [https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/505311-discussion-piece-the-psychometric-principles-of-assessment.pdf 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" /> | The MHQ is a patient-rated questionnaire, which means the patients evaluate their health state themselves. It was developed using the [https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/505311-discussion-piece-the-psychometric-principles-of-assessment.pdf 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" /> These two categories are often overlooked in other similar assessments which might e.g. focus more on the overall disability or pain experience. | 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" /> These two categories are often overlooked in other similar assessments which might e.g. focus more on the overall disability or pain experience. The questions are directed towards patients' experiences with the hand/upper extremity during the past week. | ||
== Reference == | == Reference == | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
=== Reliability === | === Reliability === | ||
The reliability, which indicates of how susceptible to error a test is<ref name=":0">Rust J. Discussion piece: The psychometric principles of assessment. Research Matters. 2007;3:25-27.</ref>, was rated as high in both the original and the review paper. This indicates that the MHQ is most likely capable of capturing the subjective health state of the patient's hand when answering the questions in a measurable way. | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
|+Psychometric Properties of the MHQ - Reliability | |+Psychometric Properties of the MHQ - Reliability | ||
! | ! | ||
!Original paper 1998 | !Original paper 1998<ref name=":1" /> | ||
!Review 2013 | !Review 2013<ref name=":2" /> | ||
!Number of studies that evaluated the property | !Number of studies in 2013 review that evaluated the property | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Re-test reliability (repeatability) | |Re-test reliability (repeatability) | ||
| | |Excellent (for five of the six domains >0.85 for intraclass correlation coefficient) | ||
| | |High re-test reliability (all papers reported >0.85 for intraclass correlation coefficient (cut-off: 0.7) | ||
| | |3 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Internal consistency | |Internal consistency | ||
| | |Excellent (all domains had a value of >0.85 for Cronbach's alpha) | ||
| | |High internal consistency (average of 0.89 in all papers for Cronbach's alpha with a minimum value of 0.8) | ||
| | |4 | ||
|} | |} | ||
=== Validity === | === Validity === | ||
The validity indicates how well the patients' problems or experiences relate to the answers of the assessment. Content validity, specifying how well the patients' experiences are covered by the questions asked.<ref name=":0" /> Criterion validity implicates the ability of the assessment's predictive value for future tests.<ref name=":0" /> Construct validity attempts to measure the overall effectiveness of the used assessment design to reflect the patients' state.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
|+Psychometric Properties of the MHQ - Validity | |+Psychometric Properties of the MHQ - Validity | ||
| Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
!Original paper 1998 | !Original paper 1998 | ||
!Review 2013 | !Review 2013 | ||
!Number of studies that evaluated the property | !Number of studies in 2013 review that evaluated the property | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Content validity | |Content validity | ||
| Line 87: | Line 88: | ||
== 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 | 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 17:52, 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, Hayward, and Arbor.[1] The process of devising the assessment was accompanied by 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 standardised instrument to evaluate various health state domains that are experienced by patients with hand disorders.[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] The design of the assessment aims to 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] Most frequently, the assessment is used on patients suffering from arthritis or trauma to the upper extremity. [2]
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
The MHQ is 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] These two categories are often overlooked in other similar assessments which might e.g. focus more on the overall disability or pain experience. The questions are directed towards patients' experiences with the hand/upper extremity during the past week.
Reference[edit | edit source]
The assessment was first published in 1998 by Kevin C. Chung, Matthew S. Pillsbury, BS, Madonna R. Waiters, Rodney A. Hayward, and Ann Arbor under the title 'Reliability and Validity Testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire' in The Journal of Hand Surgery (Link to paper).
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] They explored both the evidence on the use and the clinometric (psychometric) properties of the tool.
Reliability[edit | edit source]
The reliability, which indicates of how susceptible to error a test is[3], was rated as high in both the original and the review paper. This indicates that the MHQ is most likely capable of capturing the subjective health state of the patient's hand when answering the questions in a measurable way.
| Original paper 1998[1] | Review 2013[2] | Number of studies in 2013 review that evaluated the property | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Re-test reliability (repeatability) | Excellent (for five of the six domains >0.85 for intraclass correlation coefficient) | High re-test reliability (all papers reported >0.85 for intraclass correlation coefficient (cut-off: 0.7) | 3 |
| Internal consistency | Excellent (all domains had a value of >0.85 for Cronbach's alpha) | High internal consistency (average of 0.89 in all papers for Cronbach's alpha with a minimum value of 0.8) | 4 |
Validity[edit | edit source]
The validity indicates how well the patients' problems or experiences relate to the answers of the assessment. Content validity, specifying how well the patients' experiences are covered by the questions asked.[3] Criterion validity implicates the ability of the assessment's predictive value for future tests.[3] Construct validity attempts to measure the overall effectiveness of the used assessment design to reflect the patients' state.[3]
| Original paper 1998 | Review 2013 | Number of studies in 2013 review that evaluated the property | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content validity | |||
| Criterion validity | |||
| Construct validity |
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
| Original paper 1998 | Review 2013 | Number of studies that evaluated the property | |
|---|---|---|---|
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 1.4 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 2.5 Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):779e-87e.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Rust J. Discussion piece: The psychometric principles of assessment. Research Matters. 2007;3:25-27.
