Validation of the "World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2" in patients with chronic diseases

Abstract

BackgroundThe WHODAS-2 is a disability assessment instrument based on the conceptual framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). It provides a global measure of disability and 7 domain-specific scores. The aim of this study was to assess WHODAS-2 conceptual model and metric properties in a set of chronic and prevalent clinical conditions accounting for a wide scope of disability in Europe.Methods1,119 patients with one of 13 chronic conditions were recruited in 7 European centres. Participants were clinically evaluated and administered the WHODAS-2 and the SF-36 at baseline, 6 weeks and 3 months of follow-up. The latent structure was explored and confirmed by factor analysis (FA). Reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and reproducibility (intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by correlating the WHODAS-2 and SF-36 domains, and comparing known groups based on the clinical-severity and work status. Effect size (ES) coefficient was used to assess responsiveness. To assess reproducibility and responsiveness, subsamples of stable (at 6 weeks) and improved (after 3 moths) patients were defined, respectively, according to changes in their clinical-severity.ResultsThe satisfactory FA goodness of fit indexes confirmed a second order factor structure with 7 dimensions, and a global score for the WHODAS-2. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.77 (self care) to 0.98 (life activities: work or school), and the ICC was lower, but achieved the recommended standard of 0.7 for four domains. Correlations between global WHODAS-2 score and the different domains of the SF-36 ranged from -0.29 to -0.65. Most of the WHODAS-2 scores showed statistically significant differences among clinical-severity groups for all pathologies, and between working patients and those not working due to ill health (p < 0.001). Among the subsample of patients who had improved, responsiveness coefficients were small to moderate (ES = 0.3-0.7), but higher than those of the SF-36.ConclusionsThe latent structure originally designed by WHODAS-2 developers has been confirmed for the first time, and it has shown good metric properties in clinic and rehabilitation samples. Therefore, considerable support is provided to the WHODAS-2 utilization as an international instrument to measure disability based on the ICF model.

Feasibility and psychometric properties of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in a population-based sample of patients with myocardial infarction from the MONICA/KORA myocardial infarction registry

“…The 36-item WHODAS 2.0 contains six domains: understanding and communication, getting around, self-care, getting along with people, life activities, and participation in society. It has been tested for its psychometric properties in a number of studies with population samples [6] and persons with different health conditions [7][8][9][10].…”

Immune Abnormalities in Patients Meeting New Diagnostic Criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

“…This study examined whether these associations could be identified, using simple, validated measures of physical status [34][35][36][37] and is the first to examine this using these immune parameters. Among healthy controls, lower NK cell activity was associated with poorer physical status.…”

A person-centered approach in initial rehabilitation needs assessment: Experiences of persons with disabilities

“…WHODAS 2.0 covers six major life domains: cognition; mobility; self-care; getting along with others; participation in daily life activities; and participation in social and community activities (World Health Organization, 2010a, 2010b. WHODAS 2.0 was selected because studies support its validity and reliability in a variety of different cultural settings (Federici & Meloni, 2010;Garin et al, 2010); • a summary that includes the participant's expectations for the future, his/her rehabilitation goals, and determinations about social rehabilitation and/or other necessary services. The assessment instrument is standardized but also allows the case manager to ask open-ended questions to specify the person's situation, difficulties, and desires, also with the aim of increasing client-centeredness.…”