Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 is a generic instrument to assess disability covering six domains. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of the instrument for monitoring disability in specialized somatic rehabilitation by testing reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of WHODAS 2.0, Norwegian version, among patients with various health conditions.
For taxonomy, terminology and definitions, the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments were followed. Reproducibility was investigated by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) in a randomly selected sample. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was evaluated by correlations between WHODAS 2.0 and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form, and fit of the hypothesized structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Responsiveness was evaluated in another randomly selected sample by testing a priori formulated hypotheses.
Nine hundred seventy patients were included in the study. Reproducibility and responsiveness were evaluated in 53 and 104 patients, respectively. The ICC for the WHODAS 2.0 domains ranged from 0.63 to 0.84 and was 0.87 for total score. Cronbach’s alpha for domains ranged from 0.75 to 0.94 and was 0.93 for total score. For construct validity, 6 of 12 expected correlations were confirmed and CFA did not achieve satisfactory fit indices. For responsiveness, 3 of 8 hypotheses were confirmed.
The Norwegian version of WHODAS 2.0 showed moderate to satisfactory reliability and moderate validity in rehabilitation patients. However, the present study indicated possible limitations in terms of responsiveness.
World Health Organization. (2015). WHO Global Disability Action Plan 2014–2021: Better health for all people with disabilities. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Department of Medical Social Sciences Informatics Group. (2010). Rehabilitation measures database. http://www.rehabmeasures.org/. Accessed June 3, 2016.
Klokkerud, M., Dagfinrud, H., Uhlig, T., Dager, T., Furunes, K.-A., Klokkeide, Å., et al. (Unpublished (Submitted March 2016)). Development of a consensus-based Norwegian core set of outcome measures for rehabilitation in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
Wilkie, R., Jordan, J. L., Muller, S., Nicholls, E., Healey, E. L., & Van der Windt, D. A. (2011). Measures of social function and participation in musculoskeletal populations: Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA), Keele Assessment of Participation (KAP), Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care (PM-PAC), Participation Objective, Participation Subjective (POPS), Rating of Perceived Participation (ROPP), and The Participation Scale. Arthritis Care and Research (Hoboken),63, S325–S336. doi: 10.1002/acr.20641. CrossRef
Kutlay, S., Kucukdeveci, A. A., Elhan, A. H., Oztuna, D., Koc, N., & Tennant, A. (2011). Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International,31(3), 339–346. doi: 10.1007/s00296-009-1306-8. CrossRefPubMed
Meesters, J. J., Verhoef, J., Liem, I. S., Putter, H., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford),49(2), 326–333. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep369. CrossRef
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 Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,62(2), 140–145. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Cheung, M. K. T., Hung, A. T. F., Poon, P. K. K., Fong, D. Y. T., Li, L. S. W., Chow, E. S. L., et al. (2015). Validation of the World Health Organization Assessment Schedule II Chinese Traditional Version (WHODAS II CT) in persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses for Chinese population. Disability and Rehabilitation,37(20), 1902–1907. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.989336. CrossRefPubMed
Garin, O., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Almansa, J., Nieto, M., Chatterji, S., Vilagut, G., et al. (2010). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,8, 51. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-51. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Chiu, T. Y., Yen, C. F., Chou, C. H., Lin, J. D., Hwang, A. W., Liao, H. F., et al. (2014). Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36-item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: Validity and reliability analyses. Research in Developmental Disabilities,35(11), 2812–2820. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009. CrossRefPubMed
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health,8(2), 94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. CrossRefPubMed
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(7), 737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006. CrossRefPubMed
World Health Organization. (2014). WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/. Accessed January 8, 2016.
Üstün, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Rehm, J. (Eds.). (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Inc.
Ware, J. E. SF-36 ® Health Survey Update. http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtml. Accessed January 6, 2016.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,60(1), 34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. CrossRefPubMed
de Boer, M. R., Terwee, C. B., de Vet, H. C., Moll, A. C., Volker-Dieben, H. J., & van Rens, G. H. (2006). Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1. Quality of Life Research,15(2), 233–248. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1524-9. CrossRefPubMed
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Morgan, G. A., & Griego, O. V. (1998). Easy use and interpretation of SPSS for Windows: Answering research questions with statistics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wolf, A. C., Tate, R. L., Lannin, N. A., Middleton, J., Lane-Brown, A., & Cameron, I. D. (2012). The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale, WHODAS II: Reliability and validity in the measurement of activity and participation in a spinal cord injury population. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine,44(9), 747–755. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1016. CrossRefPubMed
Tazaki, M., Yamaguchi, T., Yatsunami, M., & Nakane, Y. (2014). Measuring functional health among the elderly: development of the Japanese version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research,37(1), 48–53. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000032. CrossRefPubMed
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
de Vet, H., Terwee, C., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL). (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research,22(3), 475–483. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x. CrossRefPubMed
Klokkerud, M., Grotle, M., Lochting, I., Kjeken, I., Hagen, K. B., & Garratt, A. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Patient Generated Index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programmes. Rheumatology (Oxford),52(5), 924–932. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes401. CrossRef
- Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway
Vegard Pihl Moen
Geir Egil Eide
- Springer International Publishing