See the published version of this preprint at Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
David Høyrup Christiansen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-3921
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) has been developed to measure musculoskeletal health status across musculoskeletal conditions and settings. However, the MSK-HQ needs to be further evaluated across settings and different languages.
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of the MSK-HQ across Danish (DK) and English (UK) cohorts of patients from primary care physiotherapy services with musculoskeletal pain.
Methods: MSK-HQ was translated into Danish according to international guidelines. Measurement invariance was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were evaluated and compared between DK (n=153) and UK (n=166) cohorts.
Results: The Danish version demonstrated acceptable face and construct validity. Out of the 14 MSK-HQ items, three items showed DIF for language (pain/stiffness at night, understanding condition and confidence in managing symptoms) and three items showed DIF for pain location (walking, washing/dressing and physical activity levels). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for test-retest were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) for DK cohort and 0.77 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) for the UK cohort. The systematic measurement error was 1.6 and 3.9 points for the DK and UK cohorts respectively, with random measurement error being 8.6 and 9.9 points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the change scores against patients’ own judgment at 3 months exceeded 0.70 in both cohorts. Absolute and relative MCIC estimates were 8-10 points and 26% for the DK cohort and 6-8 points and 29% for the UK cohort.
Conclusions: The measurement properties of MSK-HQ were acceptable across countries, but seem more suited for group than individual level evaluation. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that some discrepancy exits and should take the observed measurement error into account when evaluating change in scores over time.
Keywords
patient reported outcomes, usability, psychometrics, responsiveness, interpretability
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
Version 3
Posted 12 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 13 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 19 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 24 Feb, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 24 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 13 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
David Høyrup Christiansen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-3921
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
Version 3
Posted 12 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 13 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 19 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 12 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 24 Feb, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 24 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 13 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
Background: The Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) has been developed to measure musculoskeletal health status across musculoskeletal conditions and settings. However, the MSK-HQ needs to be further evaluated across settings and different languages.
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of the MSK-HQ across Danish (DK) and English (UK) cohorts of patients from primary care physiotherapy services with musculoskeletal pain.
Methods: MSK-HQ was translated into Danish according to international guidelines. Measurement invariance was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were evaluated and compared between DK (n=153) and UK (n=166) cohorts.
Results: The Danish version demonstrated acceptable face and construct validity. Out of the 14 MSK-HQ items, three items showed DIF for language (pain/stiffness at night, understanding condition and confidence in managing symptoms) and three items showed DIF for pain location (walking, washing/dressing and physical activity levels). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for test-retest were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) for DK cohort and 0.77 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) for the UK cohort. The systematic measurement error was 1.6 and 3.9 points for the DK and UK cohorts respectively, with random measurement error being 8.6 and 9.9 points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the change scores against patients’ own judgment at 3 months exceeded 0.70 in both cohorts. Absolute and relative MCIC estimates were 8-10 points and 26% for the DK cohort and 6-8 points and 29% for the UK cohort.
Conclusions: The measurement properties of MSK-HQ were acceptable across countries, but seem more suited for group than individual level evaluation. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that some discrepancy exits and should take the observed measurement error into account when evaluating change in scores over time.
Figure 1
Loading...