4.4 Article

Reliability and validity of upper limb short questionnaire for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 44, Issue 11, Pages 2448-2455

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1829107

Keywords

Duchenne muscular dystrophy; Factor analysis; Function; Pain; Stiffness; Upper limb

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Upper Limb Short Questionnaire (ULSQ) as a clinical measure for assessing upper limb function, pain, and stiffness in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The ULSQ was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool for screening these aspects in clinical settings.
Purpose In patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), weakness of the upper limb (UL) muscles has a significant impact on daily activities and body functions. This problem necessitates a screening tool that can be used quickly and easily in clinical situations, such as the Upper Limb Short Questionnaire (ULSQ). However, its validity and reliability as a clinical measure have not yet been evaluated. Materials and methods The ULSQ was initially administered in face-to-face interviews, and then by telephone four weeks later. Lower limb and UL body functions were assessed by the Vignos and modified Brooke scales, respectively. Results A total of 160 patients participated in the initial ULSQ interview; 132 patients completed the follow-up interview. Construct validity was confirmed by exploratory and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses. The UL function component sum score correlated with the modified Brooke scale score (Kendall's Tau 0.64,p < 0.001). The total and component (UL function, pain, and stiffness) sum scores were higher in non-ambulators than in ambulators. The reliability was acceptable, as determined by internal consistency and test-retest agreement. Conclusion The ULSQ is a valid and reliable measurement tool for screening UL function, pain, and stiffness in patients with DMD in clinical settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available