For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
32
views
22
references
 Top references
cited by
10
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      107
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The assessment of disability in a population is an important part of public health management. In this article, we examine the psychometric properties and validation of the Polish version of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. (12-item WHODAS 2.0).

          Methods

          A systematic random sample comprised 584 adult urban residents. The Polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire were used to assess disability and quality of life, respectively. Basic sociodemographic data and selected health-related data (e.g., pain and depressive moods) were also collected.

          Results

          Good scale score reliability for the entire tool was confirmed in the study population (Cronbach’s α = 0.90; Composite reliability = 0.95). In confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), satisfactory values of the fit indices were obtained (comparative fit index, CFI = 0.999; Tucker-Lewis Index, TLI = 0.999; root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = 0.004; standardized root mean square residual, SRMR = 0.043, p = 0.454). Good consistency was noted over time (correlation coefficient = 0.88). The tool was found to have an appropriate level of validity.

          Conclusions

          We found that the 12-item WHODAS is short and easy to use, and it is suitable for use in the form of an interview during screening tests. This tool is appropriate for measuring the health status, functioning, and disability of an average population. It may be more relevant for studying populations with health problems. The 12-item WHODAS can be used to successfully obtain information about the general level of disability in a population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

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

          Olatz Garin, Jose Ayuso-Mateos, Josué Almansa … (2010)
          Background The 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. Methods 1,119 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. Results The 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. Conclusions The 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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 137 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population

            Jürgen Rehm, T Üstün, Shekhar Saxena … (1999)
            Article 0 comments Cited 64 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients.

              Gerold Stucki, M Pösl, Alarcos Cieza (2007)
              To evaluate function and disability, the WHO has developed the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODASII), an instrument arising from the same conceptual basis as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The general objective of this study was to investigate whether the WHODASII--German version-is a valid instrument to measure functioning and disability across various conditions. Specific aims were (1) to assess its psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change) based on the traditional test theory and (2) to compare its sensitivity to change after a rehabilitative intervention to the Short Form 36 (SF-36). This was a multi-center study with convenience samples of patients with different chronic conditions undergoing rehabilitation. Patients completed the WHODASII and the SF-36 before and after a rehabilitation treatment. Health professionals rated in cooperation with the patients the pain of the patients based on the ICF category "sensation of pain." 904 patients were included in the study. The Cronbach's range from 0.70 to 0.97 for the different subscales of WHODASII. With exception of the subscale Activities, the exploratory-factor structure of the WHODASII corresponds highly with the original structure. The effect size (ES) of the WHODASII total score ranged from 0.16 to 0.69 depending on the subgroup. The ES of the SF-36 summary scores ranged from 0.03 to 1.40. The WHODAS II (German version) is a useful instrument for measuring functioning and disability in patients with musculoskeletal diseases, internal diseases, stroke, breast cancer, and depressive disorder. The results of this study support the reliability, validity, dimensionality, and responsiveness of the German version of the WHODASII. However, the reproducibility in test-retest samples of stable patients, as well as the question to what extent a summary score can be constructed, requires further investigation.
              Article 0 comments Cited 38 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Agnieszka Ćwirlej-Sozańska:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-6678
                sozanska@ur.edu.pl
                Bernard Sozański: benieks@poczta.onet.pl
                Hubert Kotarski: kotarski@ur.edu.pl
                Anna Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska: anna.wilmowska@autograf.pl
                Agnieszka Wiśniowska-Szurlej: wisniowska@vp.pl
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Public Health
                Title: BMC Public Health
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2458
                Publication date (Electronic): 5 August 2020
                Publication date PMC-release: 5 August 2020
                Publication date Collection: 2020
                Volume: 20
                Electronic Location Identifier: 1203
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.13856.39, ISNI 0000 0001 2154 3176, Institute of Health Sciences, , Medical College of Rzeszow University, ; Aleja Rejtana 16c, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland
                [2 ]GRID grid.13856.39, ISNI 0000 0001 2154 3176, Institute of Sociology, , Social Sciences College of Rzeszow University, ; Aleja Rejtana 16c, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland
                [3 ]GRID grid.445556.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0369 1337, Faculty of Medicine, , Lazarski University, ; Świeradowska Street 43, 02-662 Warsaw, Poland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-6678
                Article
                Publisher ID: 9305
                DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09305-0
                PMC ID: 7409488
                PubMed ID: 32758211
                SO-VID: 3c603c64-30c1-4193-b47c-d36042605299
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2020
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 13 November 2019
                Date accepted : 27 July 2020
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2020

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content107

                See all similar

                Cited by10

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors627

                See all reference authors