Validação do instrumento Disabilities of Arm, Sholder and Hand (DASH) em estudantes de Odontologia

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Wajngarten, Danielle [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/145488; http://www.athena.biblioteca.unesp.br/exlibris/bd/cathedra/23-09-2016/000848149.pdf

This study aimed to assess the validity, reliability and factorial invariance of Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand-DASH scale when applied in dental students from Brazil. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted with 335 students from College of Dentistry of Araraquara UNESP/Brazil. In order to attend the content validity, 8 occupational health experts analyzed the essentiality of item's DASH, enabling the determination of Content Validity Ratio (CVR). The psychometric sensitivity was assessed by summary measures, asymmetry and kurtosis. For confirmatory factor analysis, the 2/gl, CFI, GFI and RMSEA indexes assessed the goodness of fit of the onefactor model, two-factor model and three-factor model. The Convergent Validity (CV) was estimated from Average Variance Extracted. Internal consistency was calculated using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) and the Composite Reliability (CR). The significance level was 5%. It obtained that 11 items of the DASH presented CVR values below the recommended and 7 items do not have psychometric sensitivity. In confirmatory factor analysis it was found that the models tested did not show adequate quality of adjustment factor (one-factor model: 2/gl=4.195, CFI=0.520, GFI=0.667, 12 RMSEA=0.102, r2=0.28; two-factor model: 2/gl=2.802, CFI=0.730, GFI=0.794, RMSEA=0.077, r2=0.42; three-factor model: 2/gl=2.020, CFI=0.914, GFI=0.897, RMSEA=0.058, r2=0.51). It became necessary to proceed with the refinement of the models, resulting in the removal of 9 items' scale. After this, the two-factor model showed the best adjustment rates in this population (2/gl=1.999, CFI=0.915, GFI=0.897, RMSEA=0.057, r2=0.42, AIC=461.735, BIC=640.467, BCC=469.198). Although the convergent validity has not been adequate AVEphysical function= 0.33; AVEsymptoms= 0.38). The best adjustment...(Complete abstract electronic access below)