Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2001 Sep;60(9):841-5.

Health Assessment Questionnaire modifications: is standardisation needed?

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Health Assessment Questionnaire modifications: is standardisation needed?

M M Zandbelt et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Physical disability is part of the end point measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ DI) is often used for this purpose but lacks international uniformity owing to variations in the translated and adapted questionnaires and variations in its calculation. To study the consequences of these variations the previous Dutch HAQ (HAQ90) was revised, resulting in a new Dutch HAQ (HAQ99).

Objective: To compare DI scores from the two versions, and to study the consequences of applying different calculation methods for the DI score.

Methods: 78 patients completed both the HAQ99 and the HAQ90. To compare the use of different category score calculation methods a post hoc analysis on prospectively collected data obtained in clinical trials was performed.

Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the DI scores of the HAQ90 and the HAQ99 using the alternative method (that is, without correcting for aid and devices). However, correcting for the use of aid or devices or not did result in statistically significant different DI scores. The systematic shift when using the maximum or mean item score for calculation of the category score resulted in non-comparable absolute DI scores.

Conclusion: The use of HAQ DI questionnaires with different numbers of items and/or categories does not hinder international comparability, except when these variations interfere with the calculation method of the DI (as in the case of questionnaires without a section correcting for devices). For the sake of international uniformity the HAQ or any validated translation should be used and calculated in a standard way, including correcting for the use of aid and devices, and taking the maximum within each category as the category score.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 Nov;26(11):1346-53 - PubMed
    1. Clin Rheumatol. 1984 Sep;3(3):305-9 - PubMed
    1. Scand J Rheumatol. 1990;19(6):407-12 - PubMed
    1. Arthritis Care Res. 1992 Sep;5(3):119-29 - PubMed
    1. J Rheumatol. 1982 Sep-Oct;9(5):789-93 - PubMed

Publication types