BACKGROUND: To evaluate function and disability, the WHO has developed the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODASII), an instrument arising from the same conceptual basis as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). OBJECTIVES: The general objective of this study was to investigate whether the WHODASII--German version-is a valid instrument to measure functioning and disability across various conditions. Specific aims were (1) to assess its psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change) based on the traditional test theory and (2) to compare its sensitivity to change after a rehabilitative intervention to the Short Form 36 (SF-36). RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a multi-center study with convenience samples of patients with different chronic conditions undergoing rehabilitation. Patients completed the WHODASII and the SF-36 before and after a rehabilitation treatment. Health professionals rated in cooperation with the patients the pain of the patients based on the ICF category "sensation of pain." RESULTS: 904 patients were included in the study. The Cronbach's range from 0.70 to 0.97 for the different subscales of WHODASII. With exception of the subscale Activities, the exploratory-factor structure of the WHODASII corresponds highly with the original structure. The effect size (ES) of the WHODASII total score ranged from 0.16 to 0.69 depending on the subgroup. The ES of the SF-36 summary scores ranged from 0.03 to 1.40. CONCLUSIONS: The WHODAS II (German version) is a useful instrument for measuring functioning and disability in patients with musculoskeletal diseases, internal diseases, stroke, breast cancer, and depressive disorder. The results of this study support the reliability, validity, dimensionality, and responsiveness of the German version of the WHODASII. However, the reproducibility in test-retest samples of stable patients, as well as the question to what extent a summary score can be constructed, requires further investigation.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate function and disability, the WHO has developed the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODASII), an instrument arising from the same conceptual basis as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). OBJECTIVES: The general objective of this study was to investigate whether the WHODASII--German version-is a valid instrument to measure functioning and disability across various conditions. Specific aims were (1) to assess its psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change) based on the traditional test theory and (2) to compare its sensitivity to change after a rehabilitative intervention to the Short Form 36 (SF-36). RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a multi-center study with convenience samples of patients with different chronic conditions undergoing rehabilitation. Patients completed the WHODASII and the SF-36 before and after a rehabilitation treatment. Health professionals rated in cooperation with the patients the pain of the patients based on the ICF category "sensation of pain." RESULTS: 904 patients were included in the study. The Cronbach's range from 0.70 to 0.97 for the different subscales of WHODASII. With exception of the subscale Activities, the exploratory-factor structure of the WHODASII corresponds highly with the original structure. The effect size (ES) of the WHODASII total score ranged from 0.16 to 0.69 depending on the subgroup. The ES of the SF-36 summary scores ranged from 0.03 to 1.40. CONCLUSIONS: The WHODAS II (German version) is a useful instrument for measuring functioning and disability in patients with musculoskeletal diseases, internal diseases, stroke, breast cancer, and depressive disorder. The results of this study support the reliability, validity, dimensionality, and responsiveness of the German version of the WHODASII. However, the reproducibility in test-retest samples of stable patients, as well as the question to what extent a summary score can be constructed, requires further investigation.
Authors: Ligia M Chávez; Glorisa Canino; Gisela Negrón; Patrick E Shrout; Leida E Matías-Carrelo; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sue Hoppe Journal: Ment Health Serv Res Date: 2005-09
Authors: A van Tubergen; R Landewé; L Heuft-Dorenbosch; A Spoorenberg; D van der Heijde; H van der Tempel; S van der Linden Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Anna L Kratz; Nancy R Downing; Siera Goodnight; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas Migliore; Jane S Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: L R Cornelius; S Brouwer; M R de Boer; J W Groothoff; J J L van der Klink Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Juan V Luciano; José L Ayuso-Mateos; Ana Fernandez; Jaume Aguado; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Miquel Roca; Josep M Haro Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-12-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Juan V Luciano; José L Ayuso-Mateos; Jaume Aguado; Ana Fernandez; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Miquel Roca; Josep M Haro Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Olatz Garin; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Josué Almansa; Marta Nieto; Somnath Chatterji; Gemma Vilagut; Jordi Alonso; Alarcos Cieza; Olga Svetskova; Helena Burger; Vittorio Racca; Carlo Francescutti; Eduard Vieta; Nenad Kostanjsek; Alberto Raggi; Matilde Leonardi; Montse Ferrer Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Renata M Sousa; Cleusa P Ferri; Daisy Acosta; Emiliano Albanese; Mariella Guerra; Yueqin Huang; K S Jacob; A T Jotheeswaran; Juan J Llibre Rodriguez; Guillermina Rodriguez Pichardo; Marina Calvo Rodriguez; Aquiles Salas; Ana Luisa Sosa; Joseph Williams; Tirso Zuniga; Martin Prince Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-11-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Renata M Sousa; Michael E Dewey; Daisy Acosta; A T Jotheeswaran; Erico Castro-Costa; Cleusa P Ferri; Mariella Guerra; Yueqin Huang; K S Jacob; Juana Guillermina Rodriguez Pichardo; Nayeli Garcia Ramírez; Juan Llibre Rodriguez; Marina Calvo Rodriguez; Aquiles Salas; Ana Luisa Sosa; Joseph Williams; Martin J Prince Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.035