Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the 36-Item WHODAS 2.0 in Patients with Low Back Pain

Abstract

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be a useful tool for assessing the functioning and disability of the general population as well as the effectiveness of the applied interventions. Until this study, no data regarding the validity of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in chronic low back pain (LBP) in Poland have been explored. This study was conducted on 92 patients suffering from chronic LBP admitted to the rehabilitation ward. The Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0, the Sf-36 Health Survey (SF-36), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires were applied to assess patients. The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the study population was very high. The Cronbach’s alpha test result for the entire scale was 0.92. For the overall result of the WHODAS 2.0, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC1,2) was 0.928, which confirmed that the scale was consistent over time. The total result and the vast majority of domains of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 correlated negatively with domains of the SF-36 questionnaire; thus, a higher WHODAS 2.0 score was associated with a lower score on the SF-36 questionnaire. We found that the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the total WHODAS 2.0 score in patients after rehabilitation for LBP was 4.87. Overall, the results indicated that the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS is suitable for assessing health and disability status in patients with LBP.

Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

“…Test-retest reliability was excellent. This has been shown previously, both when the time between the two tests were short as two days in a Polish study with patients with low back-pain [28] or have been longer, as with the inter-test interval of 12 weeks in a study with older patients with schizophrenia [34]. The one-month limitation interval in this study was based on the time interval rated on the WHODAS, the previous month.…”

“…The correlations with SDS was higher than in the study by von Korff et al [25], but the von Korff study used populationbased samples with less functional impairment, which could explain the difference. Convergent validity with other measures of functioning has shown similar results [22,27,28].…”

Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis

“…The largest MCID was demonstrated both in this study for DoM (7.93 ± 0.70), and the smallest also for DoC (1.71 ± 0.347). Therefore, similar trends are observed in the size of the MCID parameter for changes after rehabilitation amongst patients with various musculoskeletal problems [35].…”

“…It is recommended by the WHO to use for brief assessments in situations where time constraints do not allow for application of the longer version or where there is a need to use a short tool to study a large population [22]. The 36-item WHO-DAS 2.0 was validated in an elderly population [34] and in a group of people over 50 and patients with low back pain [35]. However, to date, the Polish version of the WHODAS 2.0 including 36 items has not yet been evaluated in OA patients in Poland.…”

Measuring health and disability of Ukrainian cadets – translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the WHODAS 2.0

“…Translation and adaptation of WHODAS 2.0 were carried out in different languages [5][6][7][8][9][10], sufficient attention is paid to the study of psychometric properties on the example of patients with different nosologies [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], as well as for different groups in high-income countries [3,18], middle-income countries [18], and developing countries [9,20].…”