A study of the psychometric properties of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in a large population of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the validity of the Finnish translation of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0).

Design:

Cross-sectional cohort survey study.

Setting:

Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine outpatient university clinic.

Subjects:

The 501 consecutive patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Main measures:

Exploratory factor analysis and a graded response model using item response theory analysis were used to assess the constructs and discrimination ability of WHODAS 2.0.

Results:

The exploratory factor analysis revealed two retained factors with eigenvalues 5.15 and 1.04. Discrimination ability of all items was high or perfect, varying from 1.2 to 2.5. The difficulty levels of seven out of 12 items were shifted towards the elevated disability level. As a result, the entire test characteristic curve showed a shift towards higher levels of disability, placing it at the point of disability level of +1 (where 0 indicates the average level of disability within the sample).

Conclusions:

The present data indicate that the Finnish translation of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is a valid instrument for measuring restrictions of activity and participation among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Keywords

Functioning participation (WHO ICF)item response theory psychometry pain assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

World Health Organization. WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 WHODAS 2.0. Secondary WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 WHODAS 2.0, 2014. Available at: www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/ (accessed 20 January 2016).

Chiu

Yen

Chou

. 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. Res Develop Disab 2014; 35(11): 2812–2820.

World Health Organization. WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) downloads. Secondary WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) downloads, 2014. Available at: www.who.int/classifications/icf/form_whodas_downloads/en/ (accessed 20 January 2016).

Schlote

Richter

Wunderlich

. WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disab Rehabil 2009; 31(11): 855–864.

Silveira

Parpinelli

Pacagnella

. [Cross-cultural adaptation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) into Portuguese]. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2013; 59(3): 234–240.

Üstün

Chatterji

Kostanjsek

. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ 2010; 88(11): 815–823.

Luciano

Ayuso-Mateos

Fernandez

. Psychometric properties of the twelve item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) in Spanish primary care patients with a first major depressive episode. J Affect Disord 2010; 121(1–2): 52–58.

Schiavolin

Ferroli

Acerbi

. Disability in Italian neurosurgical patients: Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. Int J Rehabil Res 2014; 37(3): 267–270.

World Health Organization. WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 WHODAS 2.0, Psychometric Qualities. Secondary WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 WHODAS 2.0, Psychometric Qualities 2014. Available at: www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/index2.html (accessed 20 January 2016).

10.

Buist-Bouwman

Ormel

De Graaf

. Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European study of the epidemiology of mental disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2008; 17(4): 185–197.

11.

Hudson

Steele

Taillefer

. Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59(2): 270–278.

12.

Federici

Meloni

. WHODAS II: Disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. In: Stone

Blouin

(eds) International encyclopedia of rehabilitation, 2010. Available at: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/299/ (accessed 26 January 2016).

13.

Carlozzi

Kratz

Downing

. Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD). Qual Life Res 2015; 24(8): 1963–1971.

14.

Chisolm

Abrams

McArdle

. The WHO-DAS II: Psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends in Amplification 2005; 9(3): 111–126.

15.

Chiu

Hsueh

Hsieh

. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in people who abuse heroin. J Formosan Med Ass 2014; 113(4): 234–241.

16.

Guilera

Gomez-Benito

Pino

. Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Res 2012; 138(2–3): 240–247.

17.

Kirchberger

Braitmayer

Coenen

. Feasibility and psychometric properties of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in a population-based sample of patients with myocardial infarction from the MONICA/KORA myocardial infarction registry. Population Health Metrics 2014; 12(27): 1–13.

18.

Kucukdeveci

Kutlay

Yildizlar

. The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35(3): 214–220.

19.

Kutlay

Kucukdeveci

Elhan

. Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int 2011; 31(3): 339–346.

20.

Magistrale

Pisani

Argento

. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multi Scler 2015; 21(4): 448–456.

21.

Zhao

Liu

. Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res 2013; 22(4): 897–906.

22.

Arokoski

Mikkelsson

Pohjolainen

. Fysiatria [Physical and rehabilittaion medicine]. 5 ed. Helsinki: Duodecim, 2015.

23.

Baker

. The basics of item response theory. USA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 2001.

24.

Kaiser

. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Ed Psychol Measure 1960; (20): 141–151.

25.

Sousa

Dewey

Acosta

. 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. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2010; 19(1): 1–17.

26.

Andrews

Kemp

Sunderland

. Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS One 2009; 4(12): e8343.

27.

Kucukdeveci

Sahin

Ataman

. Issues in cross-cultural validity: Example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51(1): 14–19.

28.

Pallant

Tennant

. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007; 46(Pt 1): 1–18.

29.

Sogbossi

Thonnard

Batcho

. Assessing locomotion ability in West African stroke patients: Validation of ABILOCO-Benin scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95(8): 1470–1476 e3.

30.

Tennant

Conaghan

. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57(8): 1358–1362.

31.

Fairbank

. Use of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20(13): 1535–1537.

32.

Jenkinson

Coulter

Wright

. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: Normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993; 306(6890): 1437–1440.