Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 May 19:8:51.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-51.

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

Collaborators, Affiliations

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

Olatz Garin et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
WHODAS-2 global score for each severity group by pathology. *no statistical significant difference. Mean and 95% confidence interval is shown. Effect Size (ES) coefficient among extreme groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
WHODAS-2 scores for patients working (dots) and not working-sick leave (striped). Mean and 95% confidence interval is shown. Effect Size (ES) coefficient between working and not working-sick leave patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean chage of the WHODAS-2 scores and the SF-36 component summaries, after 3 months. Mean change and 95% confidence interval is shown. Effect Size (ES) responsiveness coefficient.

References

    1. MacDonalda Rhona, Mullana Zoë, Hortona Richard, Groceb Nora, Shakespearec Tom, Officerc Alana, Saxena Shekhar. Bringing disability off the sidelines: a call for papers. 2009. pp. 1065–1066.
    1. Mont D. Measuring health and disability. Lancet. 2007;369:1658–1663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60752-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley EM, Ustun TB. Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1173–1187. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00441-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chatterji S, Ustun B, Bickenbach JE. What is disability after all? Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:396–398. doi: 10.1080/096382899297549. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grimby G, Smedby B. ICF approved as the successor of ICIDH. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:193–194. doi: 10.1080/165019701750419545. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types