KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 2

Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation study of the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation questionnaire

Deniz ÖKE TOPCU
Sevği İKBALİ AFŞAR
Sayfa
574–582
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The T-PRWHE has three factors and the correlations between theT-PRWHE and DASH and SF-36 were statistically significant.Conclusion: Based on the results obtained, the Turkish version of the PRWHE questionnaire was found to be a valid and reliable scaleand it is recommended for the evaluation of patient-based pain and disability level in routine clinical practice.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/aim: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation(T-PRWHE) questionnaire for use in the Turkish patient population.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Moreover, we aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of theT-PRWHE questionnaire.Materials and methods: A total of 166 patients with hand and wrist problems were included in the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The T-PRWHE has three factors and the correlations between theT-PRWHE and DASH and SF-36 were statistically significant.Conclusion: Based on the results obtained, the Turkish version of the PRWHE questionnaire was found to be a valid and reliable scaleand it is recommended for the evaluation of patient-based pain and disability level in routine clinical practice.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation(T-PRWHE) questionnaire for use in the Turkish patient population. Moreover, we aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of theT-PRWHE questionnaire.Materials and methods: A total of 166 patients with hand and wrist problems were included in the study. They completed the T-PRWHE,the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) at baselineand at the 3rd month of the study. Reliability was evaluated by analyzing internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and testretest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient). To analyze validity, factor analysis of the T-PRWHE and correlation coefficientsbetween the T-PRWHE, DASH, and SF-36 were obtained.Results: Reliability of the T-PRWHE in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficients for T-PRWHE were found to be0.85) was excellent. Intraclass correlation coefficients were over 0.90. The T-PRWHE has three factors and the correlations between theT-PRWHE and DASH and SF-36 were statistically significant.Conclusion: Based on the results obtained, the Turkish version of the PRWHE questionnaire was found to be a valid and reliable scaleand it is recommended for the evaluation of patient-based pain and disability level in routine clinical practice.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TOPCU, D. Ö., AFŞAR, S. İ. (2022). Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation study of the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation questionnaire. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 2, 574–582. https://ajindex.com/articles/612796

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, Kalairajah Y. Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose? International Orthopaedics 2008; 32 (1): 1-6
  2. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V et al. 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; 14 (2): 128-146
  3. MacDermid JC. Development of a scale for patient rating of wrist pain and disability. Journal of Hand Therapy 1996; 9 (2): 178-183
  4. MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle M, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 1998; 12 (8): 577-586
  5. MacDermid JC, Tottenham V. Responsiveness of the disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) and patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) in evaluating change after hand therapy. Journal of Hand Therapy 2004; 17 (1): 18-23
  6. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH. Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery 2000; 25 (2): 330-340
  7. Xu W, Seow C. Chinese version of patient rated wrist evaluation (PRWE): cross-cultural adaptation and reliability evaluation. Annals of the Academy of Medicine of Singapore 2003; 32 (5 Suppl.): S48-49
  8. Wah JW, Wang MK, Ping CL. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Questionnaire (PRWE-Hong Kong Version). Journal of Hand Therapy 2006; 19 (1): 18-26
  9. John M, Angst F, Awiszus F, Pap G, MacDermid JC et al. The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE): cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2008; 26 (6): 1047-1058
  10. Wilcke MT, Abbaszadegan H, Adolphson PY. Evaluation of a Swedish version of the patient-rated wrist evaluation outcome questionnaire: good responsiveness, validity, and reliability, in 99 patients recovering from a fracture of the distal radius. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 2009; 43 (2): 94-101
  11. Amadio PC. Outcome assessment in hand surgery and hand therapy: an update. Journal of Hand Therapy 2001; 14 (2): 63- 67
  12. Imaeda T, Uchiyama