Quick DASH 

Basic Information

• Title/Author(s):
  QuickDASH Outcome Measure
  Authors: Dorcas E. Beaton, James G. Wright, & Jeffrey N. Katz
  
  

• Edition and Year:
  2005, published by the Institute for Work & Health (IWH) (copyright holder).
  
  

Assessment Details

• Identify TWO Types:
  
  

  • Standardized scoring
    
    

  • Self-report questionnaire
    
    

• Cost & Accessibility:
  
  

  • Cost:
    
    

    • Free for clinical, educational, and research use (permission required for commercial applications).
      
      

  • Access:
    
    

    • Instrument PDF: QuickDASH Instrument PDF
      
      

    • Assessment Info Page: Shirley Ryan AbilityLab QuickDASH
      
      

• Population & Setting:
  
  

  • Population:
    
    

    • Adults with musculoskeletal conditions of the upper extremity (e.g., fractures, arthritis, tendonitis, repetitive strain injuries).
      
      

    • Adults with neurological conditions affecting upper extremity function (e.g., stroke, brachial plexus injury, multiple sclerosis).
      
      

  • Settings:
    
    

    • Outpatient rehabilitation
      
      

    • Inpatient rehabilitation units
      
      

    • Orthopedic clinics
      
      

    • Occupational therapy and physical therapy clinics
      
      

    • Community-based rehabilitation programs
      
      

    • Research studies
      
      

• Purpose & Areas Assessed:
  
  

  • Purpose:
    
    

    • To measure self-reported physical function and symptoms related to upper limb disorders, helping clinicians understand the client's perceived disability and guide intervention planning.
      
      

  • Areas Assessed:
    
    

    • Activities of Daily Living (ADLs)
      
      

    • Upper extremity function (strength, dexterity, coordination)
      
      

    • Pain and symptom burden
      
      

    • Social participation and functional impact on daily life
      
      

Administration & Scoring

• Administration:
  
  

  • Time Required: Approximately 5 minutes.
    
    

  • Format:
    
    

    • Paper-and-pencil self-report.
      
      

    • 11 core questions rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = no difficulty, 5 = unable to perform).
      
      

• User Qualifications:
  
  

  • Can be administered by occupational therapists, physical therapists, physicians, or researchers.
    
    

  • No formal certification is required, but familiarity with scoring guidelines is recommended.
    
    

• Materials Required:
  
  

  • QuickDASH questionnaire
    
    

  • Scoring sheet or scoring calculator (optional for automation)
    
    

• Scoring:
  
  

  • Respondents must answer at least 10 out of 11 core items.
    
    

  • Scoring Formula:
    (Sum of responses−1)÷(number of completed items−1)×25(\text{Sum of responses} - 1) \div (\text{number of completed items} - 1) \times 25(Sum of responses−1)÷(number of completed items−1)×25
    
    

  • Score Range:
    
    

    • 0 = No disability
      
      

    • 100 = Most severe disability
      
      

  • Optional Modules:
    
    

    • Work Module (4 items)
      
      

    • Sports/Performing Arts Module (4 items)
      (scored separately but same method)
      
      

Psychometrics/Standardization

• Reliability:
  
  

  • Internal consistency is excellent (Cronbach’s α > 0.90 across multiple studies).
    
    

  • Test-retest reliability is strong across diverse populations.
    
    

• Validity:
  
  

  • High concurrent validity with the full-length DASH and other measures of upper extremity function.
    
    

  • Responsive to change following therapy interventions.
    
    

• Norms:
  
  

  • Not norm-referenced, but established benchmarks for populations with upper limb musculoskeletal or neurological conditions exist through clinical studies.
    
    

Critical Thinking Sections

Strengths

• Efficient — Quick to complete (around 5 minutes), reducing client burden compared to longer surveys.
  
  

• Free — Available without cost for clinical, educational, and research settings.
  
  

• Strong psychometric properties — Valid, reliable, and widely used in rehabilitation research and practice.
  
  

• Flexible — Appropriate for a broad range of conditions (musculoskeletal and neurological).
  
  

• Client-friendly — Simple language and clear response options suitable for a variety of client populations.
  
  

Weaknesses

• Limited depth — As a shortened tool, it may miss complex functional problems that the full DASH would capture.
  
  

• Self-report bias — Clients' responses can be influenced by mood, pain on the day of assessment, or misunderstanding questions.
  
  

• Not diagnostic — While it identifies perceived disability, it does not diagnose underlying causes; it informs functional impact to assist in intervention planning.
  
  

• Scoring error risk — Manual scoring requires attention to calculation to avoid mistakes.
  
  

• Less sensitive for high-functioning clients — May not detect very subtle impairments.

References 

Beaton, D. E., Wright, J. G., Katz, J. N., & Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. (2005). Development of the QuickDASH: Comparison of three item-reduction approaches. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 87(5), 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02060

Institute for Work & Health. (n.d.). DASH/QuickDASH Outcome Measure. https://dash.iwh.on.ca/

Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. (2015, September 9). Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder & Hand (QuickDASH). https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/quick-disabilities-arm-shoulder-hand