OTOtherHong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT2022

Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the Arabic version of Children's Hand-use Experience Questionnaire (CHEQ).

Ahmed Amer, Mahmoud A Alomari, Gustav Jarl and 4 others

PMID 35847188

WHAT IT FOUND

The Arabic hand-use questionnaire became understandable and repeatable for Jordanian children with one-hand dysfunction after wording changes.

Knife-and-fork and card activities fit local daily life less well.

Key findings

01The adapted Arabic hand-use questionnaire was tested with 161 children and parents in Jordan, and 39 answered again 14 to 21 days later.

02Total scores were stable when repeated, but 11 of 18 shared items stayed reasonably consistent when repeated, and 7 did not.

03The questionnaire was understandable for most items, but knife-and-fork and card activities fit Jordanian daily life less well.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The questionnaire was tested only in Jordan, so the results may not apply to every Arabic-speaking country. The study checked consistency and repeatability, but it did not show that the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure or that it captures real change after therapy. The test-retest group was small for separate age-version results, so some item-level estimates were uncertain. Some daily activities, especially knife-and-fork tasks and card play, were less understandable or less relevant in Jordan.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts. Swedish foundations and universities funded the work, and Jordan University of Science and Technology also supported it.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat the Arabic hand-use questionnaire as a proven outcome measure for all Arabic-speaking countries. It was tested only in Jordan, and the paper did not show validity or sensitivity to change.

Read it on PubMed →