Tzu-Ying Chiu1, Monika E Finger2, Carolina S Fellinghauer2, Reuben Escorpizo2,3, Wen-Chou Chi4, Tsan-Hon Liou5,6, Chia-Feng Yen7. 1. Graduate Institute of Long-term Care, Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien, Taiwan. 2. Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland. 3. Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA. 4. School of Occupational Therapy, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 6. Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Department of Public Health, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan. mapleyeng@gmail.com.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Psychometric study including exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to examine the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in terms of its dimensionality and metric properties in a sample of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Two hundred and thirty-nine hospitals in Taiwan METHODS: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the National Disability Determination System in Taiwan, including data of individuals with more than 1-year chronic spinal cord injury and over 18 years of age. We would ask the all 6 domains of WHODAS 2.0, except those participants who were not working in present, based on the WHODAS 2.0 manual. RESULTS: Data from 521 persons were included. The internal consistency of WHODAS 2.0 was high for all six domains (Cronbach's α between 0.87-0.99). The exploratory factor analysis supported the original six domain structure of WHODAS 2.0 to a large extent. Rasch analysis provided domain scores usable for measurement at the individual level and an overall WHODAS 2.0 score that takes into account the multidimensionality of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: WHODAS 2.0 provides a reliable and valid instrument to measure relevant aspects of "activity and participation" in the context of functioning in people with SCI in Taiwan and may guide their rehabilitation.
STUDY DESIGN: Psychometric study including exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to examine the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in terms of its dimensionality and metric properties in a sample of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Two hundred and thirty-nine hospitals in Taiwan METHODS: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the National Disability Determination System in Taiwan, including data of individuals with more than 1-year chronic spinal cord injury and over 18 years of age. We would ask the all 6 domains of WHODAS 2.0, except those participants who were not working in present, based on the WHODAS 2.0 manual. RESULTS: Data from 521 persons were included. The internal consistency of WHODAS 2.0 was high for all six domains (Cronbach's α between 0.87-0.99). The exploratory factor analysis supported the original six domain structure of WHODAS 2.0 to a large extent. Rasch analysis provided domain scores usable for measurement at the individual level and an overall WHODAS 2.0 score that takes into account the multidimensionality of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: WHODAS 2.0 provides a reliable and valid instrument to measure relevant aspects of "activity and participation" in the context of functioning in people with SCI in Taiwan and may guide their rehabilitation.
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: Alan Tennant; Massimo Penta; Luigi Tesio; Gunnar Grimby; Jean-Louis Thonnard; Anita Slade; Gemma Lawton; Anna Simone; Jane Carter; Asa Lundgren-Nilsson; Maria Tripolski; Haim Ring; Fin Biering-Sørensen; Crt Marincek; Helena Burger; Suzanne Phillips Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Belinda J Gabbe; Ronan A Lyons; Pamela M Simpson; Frederick P Rivara; Shanthi Ameratunga; Suzanne Polinder; Sarah Derrett; James E Harrison Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Jan D Reinhardt; Marcel W M Post; Christine Fekete; Bruno Trezzini; Martin W G Brinkhof Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 3.240