You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letters
Measurement bias in different versions of the Dutch Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index
  1. Martijn A H Oude Voshaar1,
  2. Peter M ten Klooster1,
  3. Harald E Vonkeman2,
  4. Wietske Kievit3,
  5. Piet L C M van Riel3,
  6. Mart A F J van de Laar2
  1. 1 Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Arthritis Centre Twente, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Arthritis Centre Twente, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Rheumatic Diseases, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203512

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index is the most frequently used and validated measure of physical function for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1 Various translated versions of this questionnaire have been used in clinical research in the Netherlands. In 2007, a standardised translation, the Dutch consensus HAQ, was introduced and a letter detailing its development appeared in this journal.2 The Dutch DREAM registry,3 a multicentre observational cohort study that monitors RA patients undergoing different treatment regimens, soon adopted the consensus HAQ.

    The consensus HAQ differs in a number of ways from the previously used version that was developed in Nijmegen.4 Differences include the handling and number of aids and the translation of item 13: ‘are you able to reach and get down a 5-pound object (such as …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Tore K Kvien

    • Contributors MAHOV drafted the manuscript and performed all analyses. PMTK, HEV, WK, PLCvR and MAFJvdL critically revised the manuscript and contributed to the interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval This study was approved by the ethical review board of hospitals participating in the DREAM registry.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.