2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10926-014-9514-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability, Internal Consistency and Validation of the Hand Function Sort (HFS©) for French Speaking Patients with Upper Limb Complaints

Abstract: The HFS-F has the same good psychometric properties as the original HFS© (internal consistency, test retest reliability, convergent validity with DASH, divergent validity with SF-36 MCS, and no floor or ceiling effects). The convergent validity with SF-36 PCS was poor; we found no correlation with pain. The HFS-F could be used with confidence in a population of working patients. Other studies are necessary to study its psychometric properties in other populations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…e HFS (62 tasks; range, 0-248) was used for patients with upper limb injuries [32,33] and the SFS (50 tasks; range, 0-200) for patients with spinal or lower limb injuries [34,35]. To be able to compare the scores, we rescaled the HFS score to a maximum of 200 points.…”
Section: Questionnairesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e HFS (62 tasks; range, 0-248) was used for patients with upper limb injuries [32,33] and the SFS (50 tasks; range, 0-200) for patients with spinal or lower limb injuries [34,35]. To be able to compare the scores, we rescaled the HFS score to a maximum of 200 points.…”
Section: Questionnairesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All questionnaires used were the validated French versions [28,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. Observational measures.…”
Section: Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In testing the prefinal version of the HFS-DLV, 98% of the participants made comments about the items and the comprehensibility in general. In contrast, Konzelmann et al [18] stated that only 32% of participants made comments about the prefinal version of the French HFS. Having a researcher present in our setting might explain this difference.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before translated PROs can be used, a proper validation of the measurement instrument is necessary [17]. The HFS has been validated in English using construct validation in two approaches [10], and recently the HFS was translated and validated into French [18]. The HFS has not yet been translated into Dutch.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%