[No Title Available]

Waldman, Eliseu Alves; Szklo, Moysés

doi:10.1590/s0034-8910.2013047s20001

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These values are in line with findings from many other previous studies conducted in samples of people with a range of different health conditions [5, 7, 15, 16], but higher than a few other studies [11]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The WHODAS 2.0 is available in different forms depending on the number of items (12 and 36 item versions), the mode of administration (self- vs. interviewer administered) and the respondent (patient, caregiver and clinician) [6, 7, 11, 12, 20]. The WHODAS presents list of health conditions with flash card #1 and response categories with flash card #2 visually.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the ICF framework, functioning is interpreted as a dynamic interaction between health conditions and contextual factors [8]. Accordingly, the WHODAS-2.0 was developed to measure difficulty with daily activities and social participation [9] due to any health condition, including diseases, illnesses, injuries, mental or emotional problems and problems with alcohol or drugs [10, 11]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WHODAS 2.0 has been validated in several high income countries, including Germany and Portugal [11, 12], and middle income countries such as China [13]. The psychometric properties of WHODAS have been evaluated in a number of studies, including population samples and in people with a range of health conditions, including severe mental disorders (SMD) [3, 5, 11, 12, 14–16]. However, to our knowledge, there are no published studies on the validation of the WHODAS among people with SMD in a rural African setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in people with severe mental disorders in rural Ethiopia

Habtamu

Alem

Medhin

et al. 2017

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-2.0) has been adapted and validated in several cultures, but data on performance in the African context are lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate the validity and psychometric properties of the WHODAS-2.0 among people with severe mental disorders (SMD) and their caregivers in a rural African setting.MethodsThe content validity of the 36 item WHODAS was assessed using free listing and pile sorting in 36 community members. Cognitive interviewing was conducted with 20 people with SMD and 20 caregivers to assess comprehensibility. Convergent validity and sensitivity to change were evaluated in a facility-based cohort study of new or acutely relapsed cases of people with SMD (n = 150) and their caregivers (n = 150) consecutively recruited from a psychiatric clinic. A repeat assessment was conducted in a sub-sample (n = 84) after 6 weeks. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity in people with SMD (n = 250) and their caregivers (n = 250).ResultsInternal consistency of the items of the overall scale and each domain ranged from very good (alpha = 0.82) to excellent (alpha = 0.98). Scores on the WHODAS-2.0 correlated highly with a locally developed measure of functioning (r = 0.88) and moderately with clinical symptom severity (r = 0.52). The WHODAS- 2.0 was sensitive to treatment changes (effect size = 0.50). As hypothesized, the six sub-scales loaded highly onto the general disability factor and each item loaded significantly onto their respective domains. The factor loadings of each item in the one factor model of the brief version of WHODAS (12 item) were also high. For both 12- and 36-item scales the goodness of fit indices, were close to, but outside of, recommended ranges. The caregiver data of both the 36 and 12 item versions had similar psychometric properties, but higher mean values and better responsiveness to change.ConclusionsOur study showed that both the 12 and 36 item versions of the WHODAS 2.0 have acceptable validity and psychometric properties and can be used as a cross-cultural measure; however, careful and rigorous adaptation is required for rural African settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0647-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract