Psychometric evaluation of the WHODAS 2.0 and prevalence of disability in a Swedish general population.
Disability evaluation
Health surveys
Patient-reported outcome measures
RAND-36
Reference values
Validity and reliability
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 04 2023
05 04 2023
Historique:
received:
21
10
2022
accepted:
26
03
2023
medline:
6
4
2023
entrez:
5
4
2023
pubmed:
6
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic questionnaire that captures health and disability-related functioning information corresponding to six major life domains: Cognition, Mobility, Self-care, Getting along, Life activities, and Participation. The WHODAS 2.0 is used in a wide range of international clinical and research settings. A psychometric evaluation of WHODAS 2.0, Swedish version, in the general population is lacking, together with national reference data to enable interpretation and comparison. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Swedish 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 and describe the prevalence of disability in a Swedish general population. A cross-sectional survey was performed. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. The construct validity was evaluated with item-total correlation, Pearson's correlation between the WHODAS 2.0 domains and the RAND-36 subscales, analysis of known groups by one-way ANOVA, and analysis of the factor structure by confirmatory factor analysis. Three thousand four hundred and eighty two adults aged 19-103 years (response rate 43%) participated. Significantly higher degrees of disability were reported by the oldest age group (≥ 80 years), adults with a low level of education, and those on sick leave. Cronbach's alpha was from 0.84 to 0.95 for the domain scores and 0.97 for the total score. The item-scale convergent validity was satisfactory, and the item-scale discriminant validity was acceptable except for the item about sexual activity. The data partially supported the factor structure, with borderline fit indices. The psychometric properties of the self-administered Swedish 36-item version of the WHODAS 2.0 are comparable to those of other language versions of the instrument. Data of the prevalence of disability in Swedish general population enables normative comparisons of WHODAS 2.0 scores of individuals and groups within clinical practice. The instrument has certain limitations that could be improved on in a future revision. The test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the Swedish version of WHODAS 2.0 for different somatic patient populations remain to be evaluated.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic questionnaire that captures health and disability-related functioning information corresponding to six major life domains: Cognition, Mobility, Self-care, Getting along, Life activities, and Participation. The WHODAS 2.0 is used in a wide range of international clinical and research settings. A psychometric evaluation of WHODAS 2.0, Swedish version, in the general population is lacking, together with national reference data to enable interpretation and comparison. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Swedish 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 and describe the prevalence of disability in a Swedish general population.
METHODS
A cross-sectional survey was performed. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. The construct validity was evaluated with item-total correlation, Pearson's correlation between the WHODAS 2.0 domains and the RAND-36 subscales, analysis of known groups by one-way ANOVA, and analysis of the factor structure by confirmatory factor analysis.
RESULTS
Three thousand four hundred and eighty two adults aged 19-103 years (response rate 43%) participated. Significantly higher degrees of disability were reported by the oldest age group (≥ 80 years), adults with a low level of education, and those on sick leave. Cronbach's alpha was from 0.84 to 0.95 for the domain scores and 0.97 for the total score. The item-scale convergent validity was satisfactory, and the item-scale discriminant validity was acceptable except for the item about sexual activity. The data partially supported the factor structure, with borderline fit indices.
CONCLUSION
The psychometric properties of the self-administered Swedish 36-item version of the WHODAS 2.0 are comparable to those of other language versions of the instrument. Data of the prevalence of disability in Swedish general population enables normative comparisons of WHODAS 2.0 scores of individuals and groups within clinical practice. The instrument has certain limitations that could be improved on in a future revision. The test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the Swedish version of WHODAS 2.0 for different somatic patient populations remain to be evaluated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37020121
doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00580-0
pii: 10.1186/s41687-023-00580-0
pmc: PMC10076457
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
36Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Apr;48(8):977-88
pubmed: 10390038
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 06;14(6):
pubmed: 28587271
Nord J Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;75(7):494-501
pubmed: 33969799
Disabil Health J. 2014 Jan;7(1):78-87
pubmed: 24411511
Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):505-514
pubmed: 27506525
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 May 8;6(1):45
pubmed: 35526195
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Aug 1;16(1):136
pubmed: 28764721
Qual Life Res. 2007 Nov;16(9):1521-31
pubmed: 17828578
Korean J Fam Med. 2020 May;41(3):195-201
pubmed: 32252498
Res Dev Disabil. 2014 Nov;35(11):2812-20
pubmed: 25094056
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 03;10(3):e0120077
pubmed: 25734828
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Nov;39(23):2347-2380
pubmed: 27820966
Lancet. 2009 Oct 3;374(9696):1196-208
pubmed: 19801098
Qual Life Res. 2021 Oct;30(10):2939-2949
pubmed: 34117613
Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(11):855-64
pubmed: 19093276
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):350-7
pubmed: 11491194
Qual Life Res. 2013 May;22(4):897-906
pubmed: 22684528
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Mar;28(3):211-20
pubmed: 23988324
Nord J Psychiatry. 2023 Apr;77(3):276-281
pubmed: 35833609
Front Rehabil Sci. 2021 Aug 17;2:710137
pubmed: 36188825
Health Econ. 1993 Oct;2(3):217-27
pubmed: 8275167
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2(1):4
pubmed: 29757320
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Aug 4;5(1):66
pubmed: 34347192
Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(3):260-7
pubmed: 25869288
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Nov 1;88(11):815-23
pubmed: 21076562
Fam Med. 1990 Jul-Aug;22(4):307-11
pubmed: 2200734
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):245-257
pubmed: 27815820
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7818
pubmed: 25670183
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018 Sep;24(3):386-394
pubmed: 28391768