Measuring disability: An agreement study between two disability measures.
Disability definition
Disability measurement
New Zealand Disability
Washington group
Journal
Disability and health journal
ISSN: 1876-7583
Titre abrégé: Disabil Health J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101306633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
05
06
2020
revised:
04
09
2020
accepted:
08
09
2020
pubmed:
26
9
2020
medline:
25
8
2021
entrez:
25
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) is increasingly being included in surveys worldwide to improve the quality and comparability of disability data within and between nations. However, compared to commonly employed binary impairment measures, the WGSS appears to have a relatively high threshold for disability indication. Empirical evidence is required to quantify this potential difference and its impact. To determine the agreement between a binary disability question (BDQ) and the WGSS measure administered concurrently in a large representative survey of adults. Two WGSS indication scenarios were considered: one using the recommended threshold to indicate disability (WGSS1); and another using a lower threshold (WGSS2). A cross-sectional agreement study nested within the 2018 Canterbury Wellbeing Survey of randomly selected adults aged ≥18 years resident in the greater Christchurch region. From 2807 valid observations, 493 (17.6%), 259 (9.1%), and 822 (28.7%) participants were identified as having a disability by the BDQ, WGSS1 and WGSS2 measures, respectively. While concordance was high between BDQ and WGSS1 measures (85.3%), agreement was only fair (κ = 0.37) and discordance was significantly asymmetrical (p < 0.001). Participants were more likely to be indicated as 'disabled' using the BDQ but not indicated using the WGSS1 than vice versa. Different WGSS thresholds produce widely varying disability estimates, and the recommended WGSS1 resulted in an importantly reduced disability prevalence compared to a binary impairment measure when administered concurrently. This has profound implications for inclusivity and policy for people living with disability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) is increasingly being included in surveys worldwide to improve the quality and comparability of disability data within and between nations. However, compared to commonly employed binary impairment measures, the WGSS appears to have a relatively high threshold for disability indication. Empirical evidence is required to quantify this potential difference and its impact.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the agreement between a binary disability question (BDQ) and the WGSS measure administered concurrently in a large representative survey of adults. Two WGSS indication scenarios were considered: one using the recommended threshold to indicate disability (WGSS1); and another using a lower threshold (WGSS2).
METHODS
A cross-sectional agreement study nested within the 2018 Canterbury Wellbeing Survey of randomly selected adults aged ≥18 years resident in the greater Christchurch region.
RESULTS
From 2807 valid observations, 493 (17.6%), 259 (9.1%), and 822 (28.7%) participants were identified as having a disability by the BDQ, WGSS1 and WGSS2 measures, respectively. While concordance was high between BDQ and WGSS1 measures (85.3%), agreement was only fair (κ = 0.37) and discordance was significantly asymmetrical (p < 0.001). Participants were more likely to be indicated as 'disabled' using the BDQ but not indicated using the WGSS1 than vice versa.
CONCLUSIONS
Different WGSS thresholds produce widely varying disability estimates, and the recommended WGSS1 resulted in an importantly reduced disability prevalence compared to a binary impairment measure when administered concurrently. This has profound implications for inclusivity and policy for people living with disability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32972900
pii: S1936-6574(20)30127-8
doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100995
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100995Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.