Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 1521–1531 | Cite as

Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients

  • Miriam Pösl
  • Alarcos Cieza
  • Gerold Stucki
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

ICF WHODASII Health related quality of life Health status 

References

  1. 1.
    Ewert, T., Fuessl, M., Cieza, A., Andersen, C., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2004). Identification of the most common patient problems in patients with chronic conditions using the ICF checklist. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(Suppl. 44), 22–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO Mental Bulletin (2004). A newsletter on noncommunicable diseases and mental health (p. 6). Geneva: WHO Mental Health Bulletin.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chávez, L. M., Canino, G., Negrón, G., Shrout, P. E., Matias-Carrelo, L. E., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., et al. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of two mental health outcome measures: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II and Lehman’s quality of life interview. Mental Health Services Research, 7(3), 145–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vázquez-Barquero, J. L., Vázquez Bourgón, E., Herrera Castanedo, S., Saiz, J., Uriarte, M., Morales, F., et al. (2000). Versión en lengua española de un nuevo cuestionario de evaluación de discapacidades de la OMS (WHO-DAS-II): Fase inicial de desarrollo y estudio piloto. Grupo Cantabria en Discapacidades. Spanish version of the new World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS-II): Initial phase of development and pilot study. Cantabria disability work group. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatri, 28(2), 77–87.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chopra, P. K., Couper, J. W., & Herrman, H. (2004). The assessment of patients with long-term psychotic disorders: Application of the WHO disability assessment schedule II. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(9), 753–759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKibbin, C., Patterson, T. L., & Jeste, D. V. (2004). Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: Results from the WHODAS-II. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(6), 405–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chwastiak, L. A., & Von Korff, M. (2005). Disability in depression and back pain: Evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS II) in a primary care setting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(6), 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Tubergen, A., Landewe, R., Heuft-Dorenbosch, L., Spoorenberg, A., van der Heijde, D., van der Tempel, H., et al. (2003). Assessment of disability with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 62(2), 140–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). A conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/. Accessed 11 September 2006.
  12. 12.
    Tarlov, A. R., Ware, J. E., Greenfield, S., Nelson, E. C., Perrin, E., & Zubkoff, M. (1989). The medical outcomes study: An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA, 262, 925–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Baalen, B., Odding, E., van Woensel, M. P., & Roebroeck, M. E. (2006). Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(8), 686–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buhrlen, B., Gerdes, N., & Jäckel, W. H. (2005). Development and psychometric testing of a patient questionnaire for medical rehabilitation (IRES-3). Rehabilitation, 44(2), 63–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bullinger, M., & Kirchberger, I. (1998). SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McHorney, C. A. (1996). Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: Practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 Health Survey. Gerontologist, 36(5), 571–583.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lachenbruch, P. A. (1975). Discriminant analysis. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krauth, J. (1983). Bewertung der Änderungssensitivität von Items. Zeitschrift fur Differential Diagnostic Psychologie, 4, 7–28.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schochat, T., Rehberg, W., von Kempis, J., Stucki, G., & Jäckel, W. H. (2000). The North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument: Translation and psychometric analysis of the German version in rehabilitation patients with chronic back pain. Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 59, 303–313, German.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27, 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman, G. R., Startford, P., & Regher, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 869–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liang, M. H., Lew, R. A., Stucki, G., Fortin, P. R., & Daltroy, L. (2002). Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Medical Care, 40(4), II-45–II51.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990). Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Medical Care, 28, 632–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hair, F., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. (pp. 224–225). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bryant, F., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. In L. Grimm, & R. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alwin, D. F. (1989). Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data. Quality and Quantity, 23, 277–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health related quality of life instruments based on the ICF. Quality of Life Resarch, 14(5), 1225–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ware, J., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA). Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hyland, M. E. (2003). A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zwingmann, C., Metzger, D., & Jäckel, W. H. (1998). Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36): Psychometrische Analysen der deutschen Version bei Rehabilitanden mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Diagnostica, 44(4), 209–219.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Expanded edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McHorney, C. A., & Monahan, P. O. (2004). Postscript: Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Medical Care, 42(Suppl. 1), I73–I78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2005). Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Quality of Life Resarch, 14(5), 1225–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical PsychologyLudwig Maximilian University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, ICF Research Branch of WHO CC FIC (DIMDI)Ludwig Maximilian University MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLudwig Maximilian University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Swiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations