Validity and Reliability of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36-Item Persian Version for Persons with Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

Background: No previous studies have assessed the psychometric properties of the 36-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in the Persian language of Iran. This study was designed and conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Persian version using a sample of persons with multiple sclerosis in Ahvaz, Iran. Methods: The methodological study was conducted in two stages: First, the 36 items of the original WHODAS 2.0 were translated to create a Persian version, after which the translation validity and psychometric properties were tested. The factor structure of the instrument was also tested using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients were very good to excellent, varying between 0.82 and 0.99 for the six domains, and all domains had Cronbach's α reliability values of above 0.70. For construct validity, results showed negative and strong correlation between the total score of WHODAS 2.0 and the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54. Exploratory factor analysis divided the Persian version of WHODAS 2.0 into seven factors for multiple sclerosis patients. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the Persian version of WHODAS 2.0 is a valid and reliable instrument to study the disabilities of people with multiple sclerosis.

Factor Structure of an ICF-Based Measure of Activity and Participations for Adults in Taiwan's Disability Eligibility Determination System

“…Such factor structure also found in the performance dimension of the FUNDES-Adult of persons with spinal cord injuries ( 18 ). However, the six-domain structure did not be confirmed by some previous studies ( 31 , 58 , 68 , 70 , 83 ). The possible reasons for somewhat different factor structures among the studies include differences in samples, influence of cultural and language differences, item numbers, and testing procedures between the initial WHODAS 2.0 and the Chinese FUNDES-Adult.…”

“…The item D4.5 “Sexual activities” was always missing due to the conservative culture and be refused to answer or the answer from the attitude of the respondent was not highly credible ( 71 ). The rating problem of the item D4.5 was also mentioned and suggested a cultural problem ( 68 , 70 ). Therefore, we deleted this item in the FUNDES-Adult, version 10 ( 84 ).…”

“…The WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations ( 28 ). Psychometric properties of the WHODAS 2.0 and/or the FUNDES-Adult have been evaluated for a number of clinical conditions, including, but not limited to, the following health conditions: musculoskeletal diseases ( 29 – 32 ), chronic diseases ( 31 , 33 – 36 ), psychiatric conditions ( 29 , 31 , 33 , 37 – 47 ), cancer ( 33 , 48 , 49 ), hearing impairment ( 50 – 52 ), visual impairment ( 50 ), stroke ( 10 , 31 , 33 , 53 – 58 ), Parkinson's disease ( 59 – 62 ), spinal conditions ( 18 , 63 – 65 ), traumatic brain injury ( 63 , 66 , 67 ), multiple sclerosis ( 68 ), persons with disabilities ( 22 , 23 , 35 , 69 , 70 ), older patients discharged from emergency departments ( 71 ) and general population ( 8 , 72 ). Psychometric properties for WHODAS 2.0 36-item and/or FUNDES-Adult have generally been found adequate.…”

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

“…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].…”

“…Factor loadings were psychometrically acceptable although inferior to the original scale [2]. However, factor loadings were more similar to those found in an adolescent Chinese in-patient sample [26], in people with severe mental disorders in Ethiopia [22], in Norwegian somtaic rehabilitation patients [21], and in patients with Multiple Sclerosis in Iran [27]. Most studies have been performed in older age groups [4], and this study was performed within a large age span (19-80 years).…”