Dataset Information

Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Polish Version of the 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Patients with Huntington's Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Huntington's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that usually manifests in adulthood and is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. The main aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in studying the level of disability in people with Huntington's disease.

Method

This is a cross-sectional study that covered 128 people with Huntington's disease living in Poland. We examined scale score reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity. The disability and quality of life of people with Huntington's disease were also assessed.

Results

The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the research group was high. The Cronbach's α test result for the whole scale was 0.97. Cronbach's α for individual domains ranged from 0.95 to 0.79. Time consistency for the overall result was 0.99 and for particular domains ranged from 0.91 to 0.99, which confirmed that the scale was consistent over time. All of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 domains negatively correlated with all of the Huntington Quality of Life Instrument (H-QoL-I) domains. All correlation coefficients were statistically significant at the level of p < 0.001. The results obtained in the linear regression model showed that with each subsequent point of decrease in BMI the level of disability increases by an average of 0.83 points on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 scale. With each subsequent year of the disease, the level of disability increases by an average of 1.39 points.

Conclusions

This is the first study assessing disability by means of the WHODAS 2.0 in the HD patient population in Poland, and it is also one of the few studies evaluating the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 scale in assessing the disability of people with HD in accordance with the recommendations of DSM-5 (R). We have confirmed that the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is an effective tool for assessing disability and changes in functioning among people with Huntington's disease.

SUBMITTER: Cwirlej-Sozanska A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961505 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP.MethodsWe analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF.ResultsOf 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79).ConclusionsUsing an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a widespread measure of disability and functional impairment, which is bundled with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) for use in psychiatry. Administering psychometric scales via the Internet is an effective way to reach respondents and allow for convenient handling of data. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to study the psychometric properties of the 12-item self-report WHODAS 2.0 when administered online to individuals with anxiety and stress disorders. The WHODAS 2.0 was hypothesized to exhibit high internal consistency and be unidimensional. We also expected the WHODAS 2.0 to show high 2-week test-retest reliability, convergent validity (correlations approximately .50 to .90 with other self-report measures of functional impairment), that it would differentiate between patients with and without exhaustion disorder, and that it would respond to change in primary symptom domain. METHODS:We administered the 12-item self-report WHODAS 2.0 online to patients with anxiety and stress disorders (N=160) enrolled in clinical trials of cognitive behavior therapy, and analyzed psychometric properties within a classical test theory framework. Scores were compared with well-established symptom and disability measures, and sensitivity to change was studied from pretreatment to posttreatment assessment. RESULTS:The 12-item self-report WHODAS 2.0 showed high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.83-.92), high 2-week test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=.83), adequate construct validity, and was sensitive to change. We found preliminary evidence for a three-factorial structure, but one strong factor accounted for a clear majority of the variance. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that the 12-item self-report WHODAS 2.0 is a psychometrically sound instrument when administered online to individuals with anxiety and stress disorders, but that it is probably fruitful to also report the three subfactors to facilitate comparisons between studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02540317; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02540317 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vQEdYAem); Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02314065; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02314065 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vQEjlUU8).

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic instrument for the assessment of functioning in six domains, resulting in a total health-related disability score. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Swedish-language version of the self-rated 36-item version in psychiatric outpatients with various common psychiatric diagnoses using Rasch analysis. A secondary aim was to explore the correlation between two methods of calculating overall scores to guide clinical practice: the WHODAS simple (summative) model and the WHODAS complex (weighted) model.MethodsCross-sectional data from 780 Swedish patients with various mental disorders were evaluated by Rasch analysis according to the partial credit model. Bivariate Pearson correlations between the two methods of calculating overall scores were explored.ResultsOf the 36 items, 97% (35 items) were within the recommended range of infit mean square; only item D4.5 (Sexual activities) indicated misfit (infit mean square 1.54 logits). Rating scale analysis showed a short distance between severity levels and disordered thresholds. The two methods of calculating overall scores were highly correlated (0.89-0.99).ConclusionsThe self-administered WHODAS 2.0 fulfilled several aspects of validity according to Rasch analysis and has the potential to be a useful tool for the assessment of functioning in psychiatric outpatients. The internal structure of the instrument was satisfactorily valid and reliable at the level of the total score but demonstrated problems at the domain level. We suggest rephrasing the item Sexual activities and revising the rating scale categories. The WHODAS simple model is easier to use in clinical practice and our results indicate that it can differentiate function among patients with moderate psychiatric disability, whereas Rasch scaled scores are psychometrically more precise even at low disability levels. Further investigations of different scoring models are warranted.

Project description:Background and objectiveMapping algorithms can be used for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when studies apply non-preference-based instruments. In this study, we estimate a regression-based algorithm for mapping between the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the preference-based instrument SF-6D to obtain preference estimates usable in health economic evaluations. This was done separately for the working and non-working populations, as WHODAS 2.0 discriminates between these groups when estimating scores.MethodsUsing a dataset including 2258 participants from the general Swedish population, we estimated the statistical relationship between SF-6D and WHODAS 2.0. We applied three regression methods, i.e., ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and Tobit, in mapping onto SF-6D from WHODAS 2.0 at the overall-score and domain levels. Root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used for validation of the models; R2 was used to assess model fit.ResultsThe best-performing models for both the working and non-working populations were GLM models with RMSE ranging from 0.084 to 0.088, MAE ranging from 0.068 to 0.071, and R2 ranging from 0.503 to 0.608. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 overall score, the preferred model also included sex for both the working and non-working populations. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 domain level, the preferred model for the working population included the domains mobility, household activities, work/study activities, and sex. For the non-working population, the domain-level model included the domains mobility, household activities, participation, and education.ConclusionsIt is possible to apply the derived mapping algorithms for health economic evaluations in studies using WHODAS 2.0. As conceptual overlap is incomplete, we recommend using the domain-based algorithms over the overall score. Different algorithms must be applied depending on whether the population is working or non-working, due to the characteristics of WHODAS 2.0.

Project description:Introduction: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is designed to measure functioning and disability in six domains. It is included in the International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11). The objective of the study was to examine the construct validity of WHODAS 2.0 and describe its clinical utility for the assessment of functioning and disability among older patients discharged from emergency departments (EDs). Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study is based on data from 129 older patients. Patients completed the 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 together with the Barthel-20, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and the 30-Second Chair Stand Test (30 s-CST). Construct validity was examined through hypothesis testing by correlating the WHODAS with the other instruments and specifically the mobility domain in WHODAS 2.0 with the TUG and 30 s-CST tests. The clinical utility of WHODAS 2.0 was explored through floor/ceiling effect and missing item responses. Results: WHODAS 2.0 correlated fair with Barthel-20 (r = -0.49), AMPS process skills (r = -0.26) and TUG (r=0.30) and correlated moderate with AMPS motor skills (r = -0.58) and 30s-CST (r = -0.52). The WHODAS 2.0 mobility domain correlated fair with TUG (r = 0.33) and moderate with 30s-CST (r = -0.60). Four domains demonstrated floor effect: D1 "Cognition," D3 "Self-care," D4 "Getting along," and D5 "Household." Ceiling effect was not identified. The highest proportion of missing item responses were present for Item 3.4 (Staying by yourself for a few days), Item 4.4 (Making new friends), and Item 4.5 (Sexual activities). Conclusion: WHODAS 2.0 had fair-to-moderate correlations with Barthel-20, AMPS, TUG, and 30s-CST and provides additional aspects of disability compared with commonly used instruments. However, the clinical utility of WHODAS 2.0 applied to older patients discharged from EDs poses some challenges due to floor effect and missing item responses. Accordingly, patient and health professional perspectives need further investigation.