Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2007

01-11-2007

Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients

Auteurs: Miriam Pösl, Alarcos Cieza, Gerold Stucki

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2007

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Background

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).

Objectives

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).

Research design

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.”

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.
vorige artikel Responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL)
volgende artikel Validation of the Chinese version of the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale Revision 4 (SQLS-R4) in Taiwanese patients with schizophrenia
Literatuur
1.
Ewert, T., Fuessl, M., Cieza, A., Andersen, C., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). Identification of the most common patient problems in patients with chronic conditions using the ICF checklist. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(Suppl. 44), 22–29.
2.
WHO Mental Bulletin (2004). A newsletter on noncommunicable diseases and mental health (p. 6). Geneva: WHO Mental Health Bulletin.
3.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.
4.
Chávez, L. M., Canino, G., Negrón, G., Shrout, P. E., Matias-Carrelo, L. E., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., et al. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of two mental health outcome measures: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II and Lehman’s quality of life interview. Mental Health Services Research, 7(3), 145–159.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Vázquez-Barquero, J. L., Vázquez Bourgón, E., Herrera Castanedo, S., Saiz, J., Uriarte, M., Morales, F., et al. (2000). Versión en lengua española de un nuevo cuestionario de evaluación de discapacidades de la OMS (WHO-DAS-II): Fase inicial de desarrollo y estudio piloto. Grupo Cantabria en Discapacidades. Spanish version of the new World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS-II): Initial phase of development and pilot study. Cantabria disability work group. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatri, 28(2), 77–87.
6.
Chopra, P. K., Couper, J. W., & Herrman, H. (2004). The assessment of patients with long-term psychotic disorders: Application of the WHO disability assessment schedule II. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(9), 753–759.PubMedCrossRef
7.
McKibbin, C., Patterson, T. L., & Jeste, D. V. (2004). Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: Results from the WHODAS-II. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(6), 405–413.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Chwastiak, L. A., & Von Korff, M. (2005). Disability in depression and back pain: Evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS II) in a primary care setting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(6), 507–514.CrossRef
9.
van Tubergen, A., Landewe, R., Heuft-Dorenbosch, L., Spoorenberg, A., van der Heijde, D., van der Tempel, H., et al. (2003). Assessment of disability with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 62(2), 140–145.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). A conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Tarlov, A. R., Ware, J. E., Greenfield, S., Nelson, E. C., Perrin, E., & Zubkoff, M. (1989). The medical outcomes study: An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA, 262, 925–930.PubMedCrossRef
13.
van Baalen, B., Odding, E., van Woensel, M. P., & Roebroeck, M. E. (2006). Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(8), 686–700.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Buhrlen, B., Gerdes, N., & Jäckel, W. H. (2005). Development and psychometric testing of a patient questionnaire for medical rehabilitation (IRES-3). Rehabilitation, 44(2), 63–74.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Bullinger, M., & Kirchberger, I. (1998). SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
16.
McHorney, C. A. (1996). Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: Practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 Health Survey. Gerontologist, 36(5), 571–583.PubMed
17.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297.CrossRef
18.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRef
19.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Lachenbruch, P. A. (1975). Discriminant analysis. New York: Hafner.
21.
Krauth, J. (1983). Bewertung der Änderungssensitivität von Items. Zeitschrift fur Differential Diagnostic Psychologie, 4, 7–28.
22.
Schochat, T., Rehberg, W., von Kempis, J., Stucki, G., & Jäckel, W. H. (2000). The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: Translation and psychometric analysis of the German version in rehabilitation patients with chronic back pain. Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 59, 303–313, German.CrossRef
23.
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27, 178–189.CrossRef
24.
Norman, G. R., Startford, P., & Regher, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 869–879.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic.
26.
Liang, M. H., Lew, R. A., Stucki, G., Fortin, P. R., & Daltroy, L. (2002). Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Medical Care, 40(4), II-45–II51.
27.
Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990). Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Medical Care, 28, 632–642.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
29.
Hair, F., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRef
32.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. (pp. 224–225). London: Sage.
33.
Bryant, F., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. In L. Grimm, & R. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Alwin, D. F. (1989). Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data. Quality and Quantity, 23, 277–331.CrossRef
36.
Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health related quality of life instruments based on the ICF. Quality of Life Resarch, 14(5), 1225–1237.CrossRef
37.
Ware, J., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA). Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hyland, M. E. (2003). A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 24.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zwingmann, C., Metzger, D., & Jäckel, W. H. (1998). Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36): Psychometrische Analysen der deutschen Version bei Rehabilitanden mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Diagnostica, 44(4), 209–219.
40.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Expanded edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
McHorney, C. A., & Monahan, P. O. (2004). Postscript: Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Medical Care, 42(Suppl. 1), I73–I78.PubMed
42.
Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Resarch, 14(5), 1225–1237.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients
Auteurs
Miriam Pösl
Alarcos Cieza
Gerold Stucki
Publicatiedatum
01-11-2007
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2007

Quality of Life Research 9/2007 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Deteriorating health status in Stockholm 1998–2002: results from repeated population surveys using the EQ-5D

Brief Communication

Validation of the Chinese version of the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale Revision 4 (SQLS-R4) in Taiwanese patients with schizophrenia

Original Paper

Personal accounts of exercise and quality of life from the perspective of breast cancer survivors

OriginalPaper

Responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL)

OriginalPaper

The predictive validity of health-related quality of life measures: mortality in a longitudinal population-based study

OriginalPaper

Assessment of mother and father concern in childhood hydrocephalus