Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2015

Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD)

Auteurs: Noelle E. Carlozzi, Anna L. Kratz, Nancy R. Downing, Siera Goodnight, Jennifer A. Miner, Nicholas Migliore, Jane S. Paulsen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2015

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

Purpose

The reliability and construct validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) were examined in individuals with Huntington disease (HD).

Methods

We examined factor structure (confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), floor and ceiling effects, convergent validity (Pearson correlations), and known-groups validity (multivariate analysis).

Results

Results of a confirmatory factor analysis replicated the six-factor latent model that reflects the six separate scales within the WHODAS 2.0 (understanding and communicating; getting around; self-care; getting along with others; life activities; participation). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.94, suggesting good internal consistency reliability. The WHODAS demonstrated a ceiling effect for 19.5 % of participants; there were no floor effects. There was evidence for convergent validity; the WHODAS demonstrated moderate significant correlations with other general measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL; i.e., RAND-12, EQ5D). Multivariate analyses indicated that late-stage HD participants indicated poorer HRQOL than both early-stage HD and prodromal HD participants for all HRQOL measures.

Conclusions

Findings provide support for both the reliability and validity of the WHODAS 2.0 in individuals with HD.
vorige artikel Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures
volgende artikel Psychometric properties of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in multiple sclerosis
Literatuur
1.
Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan, J., et al. (2010). Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(11), 815–823.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
Rehm, J., Ustun, B., Saxena, S., Nelson, C. B., Chatterji, S., Ivis, F., & Adlaf, E. (2006). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8(2), 110–122.CrossRef
3.
Scorza, P., Stevenson, A., Canino, G., Mushashi, C., Kanyanganzi, F., Munyanah, M., & Betancourt, T. (2013). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule for children, WHODAS-Child” in Rwanda. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57725.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Posl, M., Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2007). Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Quality of Life Research, 16(9), 1521–1531.PubMedCrossRef
5.
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 Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
Federici, S., Meloni, F., Mancini, A., Lauriola, M., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2009). World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: Contribution to the Italian validation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(7), 553–564.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kulnik, S. T., & Nikoletou, D. (2014). WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: A qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(2), 146–154.PubMedCrossRef
8.
McArdle, R., Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: Measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults. Trends Amplif, 9(3), 127–143.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., McArdle, R., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: Psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends in Amplification, 9(3), 111–126.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
Baron, M., Schieir, O., Hudson, M., Steele, R., Kolahi, S., Berkson, L., et al. (2008). The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(3), 382–390.PubMedCrossRef
11.
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.CrossRef
12.
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.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hudson, M., Steele, R., Taillefer, S., & Baron, M. (2008). Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(2), 270–278.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Masse, L. C., & Dvorak, M. F. (2010). Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(8), 735–743.PubMedCrossRef
15.
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.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Masse, L. C., Zhang, H., & Dvorak, M. F. (2010). Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(8), 724–734.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Schlote, A., Richter, M., Wunderlich, M. T., Poppendick, U., Moller, C., Schwelm, K., & Wallesch, C. W. (2009). WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(11), 855–864.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Kucukdeveci, A. A., Kutlay, S., Yildizlar, D., Oztuna, D., Elhan, A. H., & Tennant, A. (2013). The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(3), 214–220.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zhao, H. P., Liu, Y., Li, H. L., Ma, L., Zhang, Y. J., & Wang, J. (2013). Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 897–906.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Downing, N. R., Kim, J. I., Williams, J. K., Long, J. D., Mills, J. A., & Paulsen, J. S. (2014). WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease: Measures of functioning in neuropsychiatric disease. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22, 958–963.
21.
Guilera, G., Gomez-Benito, J., Pino, O., Rojo, J. E., Cuesta, M. J., Martinez-Aran, A., et al. (2012). Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 138(2–3), 240–247.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Schippers, G. M., Broekman, T. G., Buchholz, A., Koeter, M. W., & van den Brink, W. (2010). Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE): An instrument based on the World Health Organization family of international classifications. Addiction, 105(5), 862–871.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kim, J. I., Long, J. D., Mills, J. A., Downing, N., Williams, J. K., Paulsen, J. S., the Predict-HD Investigators, & Group, t. C. o. t. H. S. (in press). Performance of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntingon disease. European Journal of Human Genetics.
24.
Sousa, R. M., Dewey, M. E., Acosta, D., Jotheeswaran, A. T., Castro-Costa, E., Ferri, C. P., et al. (2010). Measuring disability across cultures–the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19(1), 1–17.PubMedCentralPubMed
25.
Andrews, G., Kemp, A., Sunderland, M., Von Korff, M., & Ustun, T. B. (2009). Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE, 4(12), e8343.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
Pringsheim, T., Wiltshire, K., Day, L., Dykeman, J., Steeves, T., & Jette, N. (2012). The incidence and prevalence of Huntington’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Movement Disorders, 27(9), 1083–1091.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ho, L. W., Carmichael, J., Swartz, J., Wyttenbach, A., Rankin, J., & Rubinsztein, D. C. (2001). The molecular biology of Huntington’s disease. Psychological Medicine, 31(1), 3–14.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Paulsen, J. S., Hayden, M., Stout, J. C., Langbehn, D. R., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., et al. (2006). Preparing for preventive clinical trials: The predict-HD study. Archives of Neurology, 63(6), 883–890.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Paulsen, J. S., Langbehn, D. R., Stout, J. C., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., Nance, M., et al. (2008). Detection of Huntington’s disease decades before diagnosis: The Predict-HD study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 79(8), 874–880.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Shoulson, I., & Fahn, S. (1979). Huntington Disease—Clinical Care and Evaluation. Neurology, 29(1), 1–3.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Paulsen, J. S., Hayden, M., Stout, J. C., Langbehn, D. R., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., et al. (2006). Preparing for preventive clinical trials—The Predict-HD study. Archives of Neurology, 63(6), 883–890.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Hays, R. D., Sherbourn, C. D., & Mazel, R. (1995). User’s manual for the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) core measures of health-related quality of life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND corporation.
33.
Feeny, D., Farris, K., Cote, I., Johnson, J. A., Tsuyuki, R. T., & Eng, K. (2005). A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 138–141.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Johnson, J. A., & Maddigan, S. L. (2004). Performance of the RAND-12 and SF-12 summary scores in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 449–456.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Maddigan, S. L., Feeny, D. H., Johnson, J. A., & Investigators, D. (2004). Construct validity of the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 435–448.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., & Kazis, L. E. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Brazier, J. E., Walters, S. J., Nicholl, J. P., & Kohler, B. (1996). Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Quality of Life Research, 5(2), 195–204.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Dyer, M. T., Goldsmith, K. A., Sharples, L. S., & Buxton, M. J. (2010). A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
43.
Calvert, M. J., Freemantle, N., & Cleland, J. G. (2005). The impact of chronic heart failure on health-related quality of life data acquired in the baseline phase of the CARE-HF study. European Journal of Heart Failure, 7(2), 243–251.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Dorman, P., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1998). Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke, 29(1), 63–68.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Hurst, N. P., Kind, P., Ruta, D., Hunter, M., & Stubbings, A. (1997). Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). British Journal of Rheumatology, 36(5), 551–559.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Carlozzi, N. E., Miciura, A., Migliore, N., & Dayalu, P. (2014). Understanding the outcomes measures used in Huntington disease pharmacological trials: A systematic review. Journal of Huntington’s Disease, 3(3), 233–252.PubMedCentralPubMed
47.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
48.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
50.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
51.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Buist-Bouwman, M. A., Ormel, J., De Graaf, R., Vilagut, G., Alonso, J., Van Sonderen, E., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2008). Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(4), 185–197.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Carlozzi, N. E., & Tulsky, D. S. (2013). Identification of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to individuals with Huntington disease. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 212–225.
54.
Downing, N. R., Williams, J. K., & Paulsen, J. S. (2010). Couples’ attributions for work function changes in prodromal Huntington disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(4), 343–352.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD)
Auteurs
Noelle E. Carlozzi
Anna L. Kratz
Nancy R. Downing
Siera Goodnight
Jennifer A. Miner
Nicholas Migliore
Jane S. Paulsen
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0930-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2015

Quality of Life Research 8/2015 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

Validation of the Malay version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) in Malaysia

OriginalPaper

The use of cognitive interviews to revise the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM)

OriginalPaper

Overall performance of Oort’s procedure for response shift detection at item level: a pilot simulation study

OriginalPaper

Perceived health status and cardiometabolic risk among a sample of youth in Mexico

OriginalPaper

Independent and combined association of overall physical fitness and subjective well-being with fibromyalgia severity: the al-Ándalus project

OriginalPaper

The correlation of the “Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History” (WELCH) questionnaire with treadmill maximal walking time is not impaired by age, in patients with claudication