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
. 2015 Aug 25;12(9):10329-51.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph120910329.

Measuring Disability: Comparing the Impact of Two Data Collection Approaches on Disability Rates

Carla Sabariego  1 , Cornelia Oberhauser  2 , Aleksandra Posarac  3 , Jerome Bickenbach  4 , Nenad Kostanjsek  5 , Somnath Chatterji  6 , Alana Officer  7 , Michaela Coenen  8 , Lay Chhan  9 , Alarcos Cieza  10
Affiliations

Measuring Disability: Comparing the Impact of Two Data Collection Approaches on Disability Rates

Carla Sabariego et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

The usual approach in disability surveys is to screen persons with disability upfront and then ask questions about everyday problems. The objectives of this paper are to demonstrate the impact of screeners on disability rates, to challenge the usual exclusion of persons with mild and moderate disability from disability surveys and to demonstrate the advantage of using an a posteriori cut-off. Using data of a pilot study of the WHO Model Disability Survey (MDS) in Cambodia and the polytomous Rasch model, metric scales of disability were built. The conventional screener approach based on the short disability module of the Washington City Group and the a posteriori cut-off method described in the World Disability Report were compared regarding disability rates. The screener led to imprecise rates and classified persons with mild to moderate disability as non-disabled, although these respondents already experienced important problems in daily life. The a posteriori cut-off applied to the general population sample led to a more precise disability rate and allowed for a differentiation of the performance and needs of persons with mild, moderate and severe disability. This approach can be therefore considered as an inclusive approach suitable to monitor the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Keywords: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; data collection; disability evaluation; disability surveys; health surveys; screeners.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Person-item map of the capacity metric built with Rasch analyses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Person-item map of the performance metric built with Rasch analyses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of the sample on the performance scale; groups generated with the screener approach.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of the sample on the performance scale; groups generated with the WRD approach.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of the samples generated with the functioning screener approach and the WRD approach for several aspects of the environment that might be hindering and facilitating, on a scale from one to five, where one (dark green) means very easy and five means very hard (red). Dark green: very easy; light green: easy; yellow: neither easy nor hard; orange: hard; red: very hard. MDS, Model Disability Survey.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of the samples generated with the functioning screener approach and the WRD approach for several aspects of the environment that might be hindering and facilitating, on a scale from one to five, where one (dark green) means very easy and five means very hard (red). Dark green: very easy; light green: easy; yellow: neither easy nor hard; orange: hard; red: very hard.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison of the samples generated with the functioning screener approach and the WRD approach for quality of life. Dark green: very good; light green: good; yellow: neither poor nor good; orange: poor; red: very poor.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [(accessed on 30 October 2014)]. Available online: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml.
    1. Palmer M., Harley D. Models and measurement in disability: An international review. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27:357–364. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Molden T.H., Tøssebro J. Disability measurements: Impact on research results. Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2012;14:340–357. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2011.621654. - DOI
    1. Leonardi M., Bickenbach J., Ustun T.B., Kostanjsek N., Chatterji S., MHADIE Consortium The definition of disability: What is in a name? Lancet. 2006;368:1219–1221. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69498-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coenen M., Cieza A., Officer A., Posarac A., Bickenbach J., Chatterji S., Kostanjsek N., Sabariego C. How is disability being assessed worldwide? A content examination of selected disability and health surveys using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2015 submitted.